Evaluating Eddie's Experience
As we’re all aware, Eddie Jordan has been a recurring name in our discussions of potential next coaches. The prevailing question seems to be how do we determine his overall value as a coach? Out of my own curiosity, I wanted to go back and dig deeper.
We know he has a career coaching winning percentage of .444, but statistics are the devil. Sorry to all the mathletes out there, but I’m just not a stats guy. Stats can prove points and disprove points, but far too often we see the same stat being tweaked to both prove and disprove the same point in the same argument.
I prefer to look at the big picture, and the circumstances that led to the stats. Someday statistics may be able to fully encapsulate the game of basketball, but that day has not yet come. People smarter than I am are valiantly working towards that day, and I am not dismissing stats. Stats are great in the right hands. But those right hands are not mine. So this will not be a statistical analysis. This will not be about showing you statistical anomalies. I will refer to stats only when necessary.
With that being said, let’s look at some stats! Here is each year of Eddie Jordan’s experience as a head coach:
| Season | Team | G | W | L | W-L% |
| 1996-97 | SAC | 15 | 6 | 9 | .400 |
| 1997-98 | SAC | 82 | 27 | 55 | .329 |
| 2003-04 | WAS | 82 | 25 | 57 | .305 |
| 2004-05 | WAS | 82 | 45 | 37 | .549 |
| 2005-06 | WAS | 82 | 42 | 40 | .512 |
| 2006-07 | WAS | 82 | 41 | 41 | .500 |
| 2007-08 | WAS | 82 | 43 | 39 | .524 |
| 2008-09 | WAS | 11 | 1 | 10 | .09 |
| Career | 518 | 230 | 288 | .444 |
These are the numbers. Plain and simple. They are facts. I cannot dispute these. But under what conditions were these numbers achieved? That is far more important, and that's what I'm going to review today.
1996-97
Let start with Jordan’s Kings teams. Jordan took over for the last 15 games of 96-97 season, hardly an ideal situation. He won 6 of those last 15 games with a team led by Mitch Richmond, Olden Polynice, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Corliss Williamson, Tyus Edney, and Brian Grant. I remember these days fondly, mostly because I was too young and naïve to realize just how bad this roster was. These 15 games are not going to be a major factor in Jordan’s overall winning percentage, so let’s move on.
1997-98
1997-98 saw much of the same roster. Brian Grant was gone, Lawrence Funderburke was in, and we had just drafted Tariq Abdul-Wahad. Despite this roster clearly having been destined for greatness, Jordan only won 27 games. I want to ask you all an honest question. If you took this past season’s roster and put it side by side with the 97-98 roster, which do you think would win more games? Obviously we don’t currently have the benefit of 10 years of hindsight to evaluate this past season’s roster, but in my mind it seems like 27 wins with the 97-98 roster was actually pretty impressive.
2003-04
Jordan waited 5 seasons before his next head coaching opportunity, with Washington. Jordan took a young Gilbert Arenas, Larry Hughes and Kwame Brown to 25 wins. An unimpressive record to be sure, but again he wasn’t really working with a lot of talent. Arenas was only in his second season, which we should all keep in mind when questioning Jordan’s abilities to develop younger players (Arenas went from Gilbert Who? to Gilbert You-Know-Who). As several other teams have shown us, Jordan cannot be blamed for Kwame Brown (or at least Eddie Jordan can’t).
2004-05
The following year, in the 04-05 season, the Wizards added Antawn Jamison. Not a lot of other significant roster changes (other than Arenas’ continued development), and yet the Wizards won 45 games and went to the playoffs. A season winning percentage of .549, and playoff winning percentage of .400.
2005-06
The next season saw the arrival of Caron Butler and Antonio Daniels, but a decrease in wins (42). But they still made the playoffs, but resulted in a first-round exit. Win percentage for the season came in at .512.
2006-07
06-07 was another season with another almost identical roster. The Wizards were a team standing still. DeShawn Stevenson was added, but would anyone in their right mind say “Here Coach, DeShawn Stevenson is the piece that’s gonna put you over the top”? And yet, the team went 41-41, and made the playoffs again. This time they were swept in the first round.
Now at this point you’re probably recognizing that the Wizards were on a downhill slide. As I pointed out, they weren’t adding significant contributors, but you’ve probably also noticed that they weren’t losing major contributors. So why the slide? Well, recall what was happening in the Eastern Conference during this time period. The East had emerged from being a perennial laughingstock and some strong East teams were emerging. The Wizards were swept by the eventual Eastern Champion Cleveland Cavaliers, signifying the full arrival of LeBron. During these seasons the East saw the arrival of the Pistons, the emergence of LeBron and the Cavs, the rise of the Heat with Shaq and Wade. In short, the East was becoming a tougher place to play.
2007-08
2007-08 saw Gilbert Arenas play only 13 games due to his knee injuries. Jordan still led the Wizards to 43 wins and yet another playoff appearance. Butler and Jamison are very good players, but they’ve never been considered elite stars. We often debate where Kevin Martin belongs in discussion among elite stars, and he not yet an elite star. He might be someday, he may never be, but right now he isn’t elite. Perhaps this next season, fully healthy, he might emerge. Or perhaps we’re able to draft a player who becomes an elite star. But either way, Jordan has shown an ability to take less-than-elite teams into the playoffs.
2008-09
Jordan was dismissed this past season after a 1-10 start, again without Arenas. Had the team given up on Jordan? Had the owners simply had enough? I can't answer these questions. But again, those 10 losses aren't going to cause major changes in Jordan's overall career winning percentage.
Finally getting to my point
Now from all of this, each person is going to draw their own conclusions. I’ve never been terribly impressed with the Wizards roster, but others may not share my view. Some may think that Jordan underutilized the roster he had at his disposal. Obviously any coach is going to have to deal with injuries as they happen. Any coach is going to deal with the changing landscape of his team’s conference and competition. Perhaps these are Jordan’s pitfalls. But at the very least, we just need to make sure that we understand the context of any statistic we’re going to rely on. The real debate should not be “He only has a .444 career winning percentage.” The debate should be what caused the winning percentage. What strengths were demonstrated? What weaknesses were witnessed? That, my friends, is where our focus must be for Eddie Jordan, as well as any other potential head coach.
81 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hmmm
Some of Prada’s opinions, as well as Jake’s of Bullets Forever.
There basic point was that he had lost the team and Ernie Grunfeld wanted to keep the team as competitive as possible. Jordan, if you believe Prada, didn’t play enough of the young players, and despite his classier personal touch, didn’t always get the most out of this lineup. Essentially, he was a victim of expectation by a front office and a fanbase that expected more with what they had.
Personally, I think the KIngs can do worse than Jordan (JVG, Westphal, Larry Brown), but they could also do better than EJ too.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I would say
Having seen this opinion percolate from BF and other places around the ’Zards, is that it was just time for all parties to quit being married essentially. What Jordan was 5 years ago was important, but now, it was time for a change and to get better while the talent was there to do so.
Personally, I think being married to Antawn Jamison and Gilbert Arenas is tough, but, whatever.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Gotta disagree with you pookey
Thanks for sharing those links, lots of insights there. But I think your conclusion is off-base.
From Jake:
I don’t think that the team tuned Eddie out by any means, but it was clear that he wasnt getting what he used to out of his talent.
And I think that Prada’s post is the best possible endorsement for E.J. as our next coach.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
Disagreement is the spice of life Ex G
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Pookey picked out a post where I was unusually jovial over EJ
It was the tribute post, so I wasn’t going to bash him like I had bashed him before.
I think pookey’s right, mostly. It was a marriage that needed to end.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
There's one think that got me thinkin'
Is the fact that Jordan never coached a “good” team..he’s only been with poor 96/98 Kings and with the never amazing Wizards…he hasn’t any coaching experience with winning teams, as Byron Scott, and I’m afraid that we should consider that .
Supporting Kings from Italy since....forever!
Go Kings!
Winning teams
I guess it depends on how you define a “winning team”. He took the Wizards to the playoffs with a fairly lackluster roster, and he did it several years in a row. Went to the 2nd round once.
Byron Scott has had teams that were more successful, going deeper in the playoffs with the Nets (Eastern Conference Champs 2 years in a row). But Scott also had Jason Kidd, Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson as his core.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
But did he as a coach ever overachieve?
It’s fine to say his teams didn’t go far because they weren’t that good. An average coach can make an average team play average ball. He can even help a good team play good ball. A bad coach can make a good team play bad ball. But only a great coach can get an average team (which we are at BEST right now) to reach inside themselves and find more, or make a good team play great ball. When has EJ ever done that?
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Apr 29, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Does Phil Jackson overachieve?
Or does he take the best team and perform the best?
by mayfieldcol on Apr 29, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Is he wearing rings?
In my opinion any coach who is wearing a championship ring—and in this case mutiple rings—has overacieved. You can say he had the best team. But how many times has the “best team” failed to win a championship?
I point I failed to make above is that a great coach also gets great teams to play great. But that’s not our worry for years to come. What I don’t want is a coach who at the end of the year says, “Yeah, we sucked, but look at what I had to work with.” I want a coach who takes the players we have and turns them into a team. Obviously not the best team, because we don’t have the best pieces—yet. But a team that surpases reasonable expectations.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Apr 29, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen
Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal all had something to do with that.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Show me a coach who wins a ring without great players.
I am not disagreeing at all, that Phil had some amazing players to work with. But plenty of coaches could have failed to win a ring even without them. It’s like being a YA fiction writer and having someone tell you how JK Rowling’s writing sucks. I’ll take that kind of suckiness any time.
Either way, we don’t have to worry since it does appear we will have a Kobe, MJ, or Shaq any time soon. But do I hear a Nash+?
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Apr 29, 2009 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Molotov cocktail of Gary Payton
and Pete Maravich might be more like it.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
+1
I’ll take it.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Apr 29, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
I'll take
a cocktail
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Apr 29, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Phil Jackson
has never made an average team reach inside themselves and find more, yet he’s got a metric ton of rings. And I would find it tough to argue he’s not a great coach.
I would argue that EJ turned average talent into a team as you described honestly. Some of those Wizards teams were actually slightly relevant and the roster has never been that good. All of that said, I don’t think EJ should be a foregone conclusion, but I don’t mind him in the conversation.
The ultimate victory in competition is derived from the inner satisfaction of knowing that you have done your best and that you have gotten the most out of what you had to give…Howard Cosell
by ForThree on Apr 29, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
We agree on something
I didn’t think the day would ever come. (Other than this team sucks.)
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
If you already have the best team
then your job as coach is just to make sure your team plays to its ability. There’s no such thing as overachieving if you have the best team. But that’s not going to be our concern for a long time.
And just for the sake of it, teams with MJ and Pippen or Kobe and Shaq that didn’t win championships (and, not coincidentally, weren’t coached by Jackson):
1988 Bulls, 1989 Bulls, 1997 Lakers, 1998 Lakers, 1999 Lakers
It seems to me that he was able to take very good teams and turn them into champions, which qualifies as overachieving in my book.
Overachieving
My thought as I did this review was that, yes, he has overachieved. However, it’s very difficult to ever determine if a coach has ever over- or under-achieved, because you’re taking something factual and comparing it to a hypothetical. We can never know for certain if a different coach would have led the team to a better or worse record.
Ultimately my point was that when we’re debating a potential coach, we should debate the merits of their strengths and weaknesses as coaches as opposed to the statistical results. Yes, the results are important, but we must pay attention to the circumstances under which those results were achieved. That seems to be the debate that we’re now having, which is good.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
+1
Agree completely. I thought it was a great post, and we do have to look beneath the numbers. EJ may prove just what we need, but I just have a bad feeling about him. Maybe it’s just the whole. “we should hire him because he gets along with Petrie” thing. There are several coaches out there who took teams that were playing average ball and the very next year stepped it up. I just don’t see that in EJ. But like you said, there are alot of variables. And sometimes a coach just has to stepo into the right situation for him to really shine. That could be the case here.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Apr 29, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions
"we should hire him because he gets along with Petrie"
The one thing I will say towards this: I can think of a lot worse situation than having a GM drafting players that fit a certain philosophy, and having a coach who subscribes to the same philosophy.
As an example, if Avery Johnson is our next coach, would he become frustrated because Petrie was drafting players that didn’t fit the needs of his system? Just a thought.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Apr 29, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
such an important point
The brilliance of Bill Parcells’ philosophy “you are what you are” is that you get a team to work together better and to perform better if you accept players for what they are and try to put them in a situation where they can be the best “them” they can be. The analogy here is that if Petrie is picking the players, let him pick the players, and get him a coach that can best put those players in a situation where they can be at their best. EJ makes a lot lot lot of sense to me.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
Adelman was frustrated
that he didn’t have defensive players, and he was a Petrie guy.
I worry that hiring Jordan will allow GP to indulge his weaknesses and stockpile the team with softie jumpshooters, with EJ cheering him on.
please
Even Princeton offense coaches want to play great defense, too. What Adelman was frustrated by was the label that he wasn’t a defense-oriented coach — and his characteristically prickly retort was that he didn’t have defense-oriented players.
EJ will allow GP to indulge his “weakness” and with any luck we’ll be just as “weak” as the 2002 Kings. I’m on board wth that.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
C Webb once said, re the Kings and post defense
“Every team, even championship teams, have a weakness that they cover for. The key is how well you are able to cover for it.”
It is natural for a Princeton offense team to respond to failure by wanting to ditch offense altogether and hire Avery Johnson…Until he fails and then we want D’Antoni.
The truth is what CWebb said. The Princeton offense system can win, as long as they team is able to cover for its weaknesses.
Life is every mammal's journey from very very wet to very very dry.
One way you could argue that
Is that by exhibiting your strength, you leave your weaknesses behind. The Kings of 01-02 did that very well. They played the best basketball offensively in the history of the franchise.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
For the record
According to basketball-reference, the 2001 Kings were the 7th best defensive team in the league, 2002 6th, and 2003 2nd.
Washington’s defensive ranks were between 19th and 28th for Jordan’s career. Maybe it was a personnel problem that just kept getting worse, but a large part of that has to be attributed to the coach.
Rick Adelman wasn't that popular here
But then again, he probably was in retrospect.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
I'm not sure Adelman was as frustrated
By not having defensive players, as he was being hammered by the local media for his team’s woeful defensive performance.
Ike Diogu - kicking ass and taking names since 4/13/09
Basketball Reference has
A SRS (Simple Rating System) which takes strength of schedule and margin of victory into account.
Adelman is the only coach in franchise history to have even a single season of SRS over 5 (and those were in the “glory” years). One year over 6 (02-03( and one year over 7 (01-02).
The media never bothered to fact check much. (I don’t think they like stats either to be honest.) Neither did the Maloof’s. Petrie was willing to see him go because he wasn’t hired by Petrie. He was hired by Jim Thomas.
The bottom line with Adelman was that he was a very successful coach who many have not appreciated the work he did do because of the talent he had here. Similarly, that’s true of people in Houston too.
My Rick Adelman lecture is now over.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Not sure how that applies to my statement
I think he was a good coach, but he hated being called out for his team’s bad defense. And his pissiness was most apparent towards the end of his tenure, when the team was clearly in decline.
Ike Diogu - kicking ass and taking names since 4/13/09
You would be pissy if the owners of the team had treated you that way
Right or wrong, Adelman did alot for the franchise on the sidelines.
But, you’re right too. I just don’t think your statement was about you perse; more a reflection of what others who don’t recognize what you do about Adelman.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
adding the fact
that Adelman is sure not a bad defensive coach…I watched Houston’s game @ Portland yesterday, and I have to say it’s the best and most balanced playoff’s series…nice defensive plays from both teams
Supporting Kings from Italy since....forever!
Go Kings!
Adelman's biggest strength
is recognizing what he has to work with and designing a system around them. That’s why player’s love him. It’s also why he was not afraid of taking back Artest. I’d love to get something like that in our new head coach. Don’t come to me with a “system.” Come to me with enough knowledge that you can design a system that will work for this team.
I know Phil has the triangle, but he also has the clout to demand players that can fit into it.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
He also modifies the triangle
It isn’t a set specific system but based on cutting and passing and moving and all that junk. He can tailor it to any group. Obviously, the talent running it will make a great deal of difference.
I do agree that Adelman will tailor the system for whatever team he’s coaching to the player’s strengths. It seems simple; it isn’t in all actuality.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
This is disturbing
. Petrie was willing to see him go because he wasn’t hired by Petrie. He was hired by Jim Thomas.
If we believe that the Musselman/ Theus decisions were the result of owner meddling, then Petrie has never actually hired a coach – Adelman was already coach when Petrie was hired as GM in Portland and both left the same year.
Other than Jordan, Mussleman and Theus, Petrie’s track record on hiring coaches appears to be pretty thin. And the tea leaves are pointing to him doing a retread with Jordan – not that he may or may not be good choice.
That aside, I always thought Adelman was Petrie’s hire, due to their history in Portland/
Revisionist history
Petrie was so upset about the firing of Jordan that he turned his back on Thomas at the press conference. I’m not sure that he was all that “willing to see him go.”
SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!
Not that
Arenas, Butler and Jamison are that bad.
The point is that never a team with ambitions tought of EJ as head coach.
Supporting Kings from Italy since....forever!
Go Kings!
Also EJ was a well regarded assistant of NJ...
when they went to back to back NBA finals. Lang Whitaker of SLAM magazine used to joke that Byron was the assistant coach and EJ was the head coach.
I'm half convinced that the 01-03 Nets may be our destiny
A Jason Kidd-like point guard at the helm in Rubio… Kevin Martin once had Kerry Kittles comparisons (and has since exceeded them mightily… Thompson could have a Kenyon Martin like impact… and both Hawes and Todd Maculloch went to Washington. All with either Byron Scott or Eddie Jordan patrolling the sidelines. It all makes perfect sense, Petrie ;)
Not to downplay your point
But I know of another well respected assistant coach whose team went to the finals twice in a row and lost to the bulls in 96 and 97.
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Apr 29, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Don't you mean 97 & 98?
Still your point about Phil Johnson is astute.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Yep
I was thinking about the begining of the seasons but you are right. (I’d say as always, but I think your cranium is enlarged enough!)
"Shut up and Coach!"
Vfettke
by SavageBeast on Apr 29, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not always right
But my head is big enough.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
Eddies ok but we can hope for Byron
Season Age Lg Tm G W L % Finish G Plyf W W-L% Notes
2000-01 39 NBA NJN 82 26 56 .317 6
2001-02 40 NBA NJN 82 52 30 .634 1 20 11 9 .550 EC Champions
2002-03 41 NBA NJN 82 49 33 .598 1 20 14 6 .700 EC Champions
2003-04 42 NBA NJN 42 22 20 .524 1
2004-05 43 NBA NOH 82 18 64 .220 5
2005-06 44 NBA NOK 82 38 44 .463 4
2006-07 45 NBA NOK 82 39 43 .476 4
2007-08 46 NBA NOH 82 56 26 .683 1 12 7 5 .583
2008-09 47 NBA NOH 82 49 33 .598 4 4 1 3 .250
Career NBA 698 349 349 .500 56 33 23 .589
Awards
I like Scott
But this goes back to my initial point: What were the conditions? Scott has had a lot of talent on his teams (Kidd, Jefferson, and then Paul, Chandler, Stojakovic, West) compared to Jordan. Those Eastern Conference Championships came when the East was a much weaker conference.
We can’t just look at a statistic to tell us “good coach” or “bad coach”.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
True, but...
the statistics also say that in every team Scott head-coached he brought his project to good playoffs results in a couple of year. Also, he has developed teams with good offensive and defensive plays and, while he sure had Kidd and Martin in his team, he also had Kittles and Collins (if I remember well) in the starting 5, who aren’t sure your best sg and c.
Supporting Kings from Italy since....forever!
Go Kings!
The difference
The arguments just made are examples of strengths, they are not a statistic. The stat is that he won two EC Championships, the discussion is when you point out that he did that with players like Kittles and Collins. That’s a valid point, and that’s what the idea of this post was. Let’s debate strengths and weaknesses, let’s discuss examples, but let’s not just spout a stat.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
But aren't wins and losses more than just a statistic?
I agree that they aren’t the only way that coaches should be evaluated. But they also aren’t some fuzzy number developed to quantify some quality. In pro sports wins and losses are the only way to measure success. It’s important to think critically about the causes of wins and losses, but they can’t be “tweaked” to misrepresent a situation.
When I consider the case for Eddie Jordan, I ask myself how his particular skill set and the Kings unique qualities might mutually benefit one another. But I don’t ask whether his tenure in Washington was an overall success. The record answers that.
Still depends
Yes, wins and losses are straightforward and undisputable. And if you look at 1 season in and of itself, wins and losses can determine success or failure. But if we’re evaluating a coaching candidate as our potential next coach, we have to look beyond just the wins and losses. Did he develop younger players? Did he good have players? These types of questions will help us evaluate his potential as a coach more that just looking at wins and losses.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
Well let's inspect that
Did he develop young players? – Maybe individually, certainly not as a team. Arenas was the league’s most improved player and MVP of the Rookie/Soph game before he got to Washington, which is why it cost $65M to get him. His scoring improved substantially over the course of the next few years, but isn’t that what you would expect from any 21 year-old player making $10M per year? As for the rest of the Wizards, they developed from players on a bad team to players on an average team (i.e. a team that won 40-45 games per season). If the goal of developing talent is to improve the team, and the only relevant measure of team improvement is win percentage, then EJ did not develop talent correctly and/or enough.
Did he have good players? – One second-tier superstar and two fringe allstars is nothing to scoff at. It’s certainly more than we can reasonably expect to have for a while. Ultimately what makes a player look good is winning, which is why allstars, MVPs and even highly paid players receive those accolades disproportionately when they are on winning teams. Personally, I think the core of Arenas, Butler, and Jamison has better than average talent. I know most will disagree with me, but I think that the reason for the Wiz’s mediocre play was a lack of defense, instead of a lack of talent. But this argument is totally subjective, so I guess the circle is complete.
I don't disagree
That Arenas, Butler and Jamison are a good 3 player core, I just think a more physical player needed to be amongst them. I repeat my blah blah blah about good teams needing a guy who plays at the rim first and foremost, a guy who can still score when jumpers aren’t falling – but I don’t question thier talent, just the makeup of thier roster.
That said, I think a few more wins were there to be had.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect
and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Apr 30, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, Petrie says he wants someone
who has had success in the NBA. How do you think he is going to measure that?
He said
“Some level of success” correct?
Ej fits that, so does any head coach… they have had “some level” of success.
I would imagine taking a team to the playoffs and developing a young roster would be pre-requisites. Which EJ and Scott have done both.
Blessings.Love.Peace
by lifestyleforthesellout on Apr 29, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions
True
If Petrie’s decision comes down to choosing either Scott or Jordan, I personally think it’s a win-win for the franchise.
Never forget: I am a complete idiot
by Exhibit G on Apr 29, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Being a front page poster has made you smarter
But, seriously, that’s a brilliant point. It’s just the same with the talent as it is the coaching pool. The more qualified candidates you have, the more likelihood you have of choosing someone that really works for you in all phases.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
And with Curry and Frank staying put
It may be a buyer’s market for coaches, which is definitely good for us.
I think with EJ
It will come down to Philly, and Sacramento. If he gets the Philly offer, he’ll take that.
Evil Cowtown Inc: Screwin' Suckaz over since Nineteen Eighty-Five.....
No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....
EJ could be a safe and
reasonable choice. However, this very thought-provoking analysis makes me think that he basically doesn’t impede the team he coaches and he may not take them to another level either.
Is the question, ‘Is he a teacher?’, at this stage for the team? I would want an outstanding teacher, and I wonder if his resume’ screams manager.
Developing talent is an art, winning cures all ills and one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
The debate as to whom would the Kngs best succeed with in the next three seasons – the length of any contract – is not “who is the best Coach available?” but is better asked as “who is the best Coach for this Kings team – the young, three new draft picks coming, Geoff Petrie produced Kings team – available?”
Can Eddie Jordan teach this team to win (ten more games next year and continue to build them into a playoff contender) with the roster given to him?
As for Coach Rick Adelman – he remains one of the most under appreciated NBA Coaches in history. I don’t know why he is under apreciated or disliked by the media (and Kings ownership). It may be that he is one of those quiet, I am the Coach, not a media personality attitudes. It may be that he coaches his teams his way and doesn’t appreciate advice and direction from no nothing Bordeaux and burger eaters and doesn’t mind telling them so – isn’t winning enough? The guy takes a variety of teams, excepting Garry St.Jean’s atrocious Dubs, and turns out winners, acheivers, with a variety of rosters and players who stand by him. He lacks the tough Cowboy charisma of Jerry Sloan, the gruff wildness of a Don Nelson, or the snappy intensity of a Mike D’Antoni all who have had many winning seasons but never winning championships but have garnered the approval and respect of the media. Coaching in Sacramento (vs. LA, Phoenix, NY) doesn’t help.
As for talent status – someone mentions that the Kings may be average at best. uhhh, not even close. The Kings have one of the least talented if not THE least talented teams in the league. Don’t underestimate the power of a Coach to make a good player an All-Star, or a improving player a coulda been.
by betweentheeyes on Apr 29, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions
What I don't get about the Scott thing...
The Hornets were willing to give Tyson Chandler away to anyone who would take him…
would they really fire Scott and spend money on another coach?
But if someone else hires him
they only pay the difference between the two contracts, right? So it would be a hit, but if they hired a real cheap new coach they could actually end up saving money.
No guarantee he gets hired next year though
What if he wants to take the year off?? If the Hornets are really THAT much worried about money, they shouldn’t let him go…. yet.
If I were the Hornets
I wouldn’t fire Scott, mainly because theres not anyone out there currently who’d be much of an improvement, in my opinion. In the Kings case, almost anyone would be an improvement. But we don’t need just improvement we need a drastic improvement.
Drastic improvement? Really?
If the goal were to be a playoff team in 3 yrs, thats a goal of going from a 17 game winning season to a 55 game winning season. That’s 13 more wins each yr for 3 yrs. 3 yrs and 3 lottery picks. Realisticly, can we truely believe that this team win more than 34 games even with the #1 draft pick & a new coach. 34 wins puts us in 11th place in the East or 10th place in the West. That’s still in the top 10 lottery picks in 2010.
We need to take baby steps. Continue to develop the young guys and allow them to get stronger and learn to play together. We don’t need a dictator or task master. We need a mentor & a teacher. Now, maybe that won’t be the head coach, maybe the head coach needs to be the choreographer who delegates duties to his assistants. But, he better have the best teaching assistants money can buy especially the big man developer.
And, somebody better know how to teach defense if we ever want got get out of the 1st round of the playoffs.
"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom
Absolutely HT
A teacher who can be patient and find out what all these (too many IMO if we draft all 3) kids can do, maximize, build off those abilities and teach them consistantly on thier weaknesses.
A teacher, a teacher with a Plan!, but a teacher first and foremost will be vital.
There will be sooo many kids after the draft (sigh) that its going to be difficult to develop them all without a staff of teachers. Thats the primary reason I hope (just a hope) we can package 23 &31 to move up.
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect
and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Apr 30, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions
This team needs veteran leadership
we need to sign some real talent this off-season or next. Not David Lee, but real talent and leadership. Maybe someone like Andre Miller…who knows.
Hope
by Ultrakingsfan on Apr 30, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
At what price?
So imitate the action of the tiger!.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect
and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii
by lietothegirls on Apr 30, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Apart from "upbringing" Arenas,
Jordan also took the best out of Larry Hughes. He had a crazy superstar year in 04-05 with 22-6-5-3.
That line fooled the Cavs, the Bulls and probably the Knicks too.
by ZenBaller on Apr 30, 2009 1:54 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Not to mention
He’s also partly responsible for Jared Jeffries’ ridiculous contract. Mainly it’s Isiah’s fault, but Jordan did help inflate Jared’s offensive value which had to have some impact on the negotiations.
I’d like to apologize for not coming by and adding a Washington perspective earlier. I got caught up in the Heat-Hawks game last night (which is weird, because I didn’t even find it all that interesting) and forgot to chime in last night. There’s not a lot left to add that hasn’t already been talked about, but I think Exhibit G is right that Eddie Jordan is a better coach than his winning percentage would indicate. However, I think the defensive ratings that his Washington teams had are an accurate reflection of his defensive coaching ability. He’s still a very good coach that I think will make the Kings better, but you better hope that he brings on an assistant that knows what he’s doing on the defensive end if you want to maximize his effectiveness.
Bullets Forever: A blog dedicated to the Washington Wizards with analysis, commentary, and more YouTube videos than your eyes can handle.
by Jake Whitacre on Apr 30, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
great points
both of you
The ultimate victory in competition is derived from the inner satisfaction of knowing that you have done your best and that you have gotten the most out of what you had to give…Howard Cosell




















