migya wrote:There can be a points system for each criterion I list above. It would likely not be perfect but no criteria system is.

Something like 1-10 scoring system for each category; So a 10 for Production of that player could be attributed to the elite, like Jordan, Chamberlain and so forth, players that produced alot stat wise. A player like McHale would get like a 7, as he did produce well, just not like the mentioned players.
This score for that particular category can be multiplied bby every other category, so a guy like Lebron, who gets 10 for Production of that player category, gets a fairly low score in the Length of high performance in career category because he has only been around for three years.
That would give a pretty good rating score for all the players

I find that system a bit too complicated. How would you calculate the final rating?. Adding all those scores?. By average?.

And the younger players still would be penalized a lot...

I'd like to keep it simple and give a single rating to the whole team.

But whatever. If everybody wants to do it that way, I'm ok with that, too.

I'm taking Phil Jackson. My team isn't exactly themed so I'm just taking a guy who knows to get a lot of stars working together.

I have to admit, I respect him a lot more for what he's done with the current Lakers team than I did for what he did with the championship Bulls and Lakers.

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:I have to admit, I respect him a lot more for what he's done with the current Lakers team than I did for what he did with the championship Bulls and Lakers.

Me too. If anybody had doubts about what kind of coach he really is, this year's Lakers are proof enough of his skills. No more "he had a loaded roster" excuses.

TMC wrote:

migya wrote:There can be a points system for each criterion I list above. It would likely not be perfect but no criteria system is.

Something like 1-10 scoring system for each category; So a 10 for Production of that player could be attributed to the elite, like Jordan, Chamberlain and so forth, players that produced alot stat wise. A player like McHale would get like a 7, as he did produce well, just not like the mentioned players.
This score for that particular category can be multiplied bby every other category, so a guy like Lebron, who gets 10 for Production of that player category, gets a fairly low score in the Length of high performance in career category because he has only been around for three years.
That would give a pretty good rating score for all the players

I find that system a bit too complicated. How would you calculate the final rating?. Adding all those scores?. By average?.

And the younger players still would be penalized a lot...

I'd like to keep it simple and give a single rating to the whole team.

But whatever. If everybody wants to do it that way, I'm ok with that, too.

Younger players and players that haven't played many games in their careers (like 600 compared to others who play 1000 or thereabouts) should not be rated as highly.

This is all geared towards rating a team over a "career" length of time or approximately 15 years. If we were picking teams just for one year, then there are alot of young guys that would have been picked.

The point is to give an average rating to each player, trying to make a significant comparison between all players across all eras. A points system seems to be the only way to get a close evaluation but we can always just have a vote to see what opinions think and evaluate that way

TMC wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:I have to admit, I respect him a lot more for what he's done with the current Lakers team than I did for what he did with the championship Bulls and Lakers.

Me too. If anybody had doubts about what kind of coach he really is, this year's Lakers are proof enough of his skills. No more "he had a loaded roster" excuses.

I'll wait for the end of the season to admit that. We always knew that young players like Andrew Bynum, Jordan Farmar, and Trevor Ariza were talented. They just needed minutes. If anything, I attribute the Lakers' recent success, #1, to Kobe Bryant, who seems to realize the importance of teaching his teammates now, and, #2, to Mitch Kupchack, whom I had labeled as the worst GM in all of basketball after the Shaq trade. Mitch has done a good job with nothing but mid-1st round picks for LA the past few years. The Kwame-for-Caron trade is still one of the worst I've ever seen, but aside from that, he's done a pretty decent job since Shaq's exodus. Phil Jackson, honestly, seems to only go as far as his roster on paper. I'd be shocked if LA made it past the 2nd round this year. If they do, I'll readily admit that Phil Jackson is a wizard that doesn't rely on stacked rosters. If not, the Lakers aren't doing anything we didn't expect them to do. Dallas proved, last year, that regular season records can be decieving (or, in their case, outright flukes).

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:I'm taking Phil Jackson. My team isn't exactly themed so I'm just taking a guy who knows to get a lot of stars working together.

Phil Jackson has the best winning percentage alltime and his teams were not the most talented among championship teams alltime. I do think he is a gold digger as such and only recently had to coach a team that was somewhat rebuilding but his resume leaves no doubt that he is one of the best coaches ever

I'm not a big fan of the holistic ratings system. They seem arbitrary and, if there was going to be a specific ratings system, it shouldn't have been tacked on after the fact by a participant.

With the lack of size on my team (but the great amount of ballhandlers) I really wanted to take Don Nelson as my coach. I can't do it though, since I'd be passing on several coaches who I feel are much better.

With that said, I'll take Pat Riley, who knows how to run and gun and is probably the best fit other than Nellie for my team.

Riley as a run and gun coach?

What?

I must respectfully ask, my friend, when Riley has ever shown a run-and-gun mentality that DIDN'T involve Magic Johnson, the one-man fast break?

32 wrote:Riley as a run and gun coach?

What?

I must respectfully ask, my friend, when Riley has ever shown a run-and-gun mentality that DIDN'T involve Magic Johnson, the one-man fast break?

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Showtime Lakers years, though I'm pretty sure a retarded labrador (*cough* paul westhead *cough*) could have coached that team to multiple rings.

I'm going with one of a my favorite coaches in the game. One that, sadly, doesn't have the resumé of others, but that usually finds way to win. Also, he'd have a title if not for MJ.

George Karl




Probably should have gone with Red Holzman. That was the more logical pick... but f*ck it. I'm picking with my heart. Let's see this team implode under Furious George. It's gonna be fun.

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

32 wrote:Riley as a run and gun coach?

What?

I must respectfully ask, my friend, when Riley has ever shown a run-and-gun mentality that DIDN'T involve Magic Johnson, the one-man fast break?

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Showtime Lakers years, though I'm pretty sure a retarded labrador (*cough* paul westhead *cough*) could have coached that team to multiple rings.

I am referring to the showtime Lakers. And yes, even a ham sandwich could've run that team, but Riley did it and did it as well as anyone else could've. Still, I wouldn't sleep on Riley as a coach - he is number two all time in winning percentage I believe and is one of few coaches to win titles with multiple franchises.

I'm picking a coach that won championships and did well with a tough frontline, a tough defensive SG and a superstar PG. Since I have TimBug and Lenny Wilkens, as well as dumars and a loaded frontline, this man will have a great time taking them to wins




Chuck Daly

I think Greg Popovich is the best coach in the game today, so I pick him...

Hmm... with the team I have, offense isn't really a problem because all can score. It's the defense. So I think I'm going to go with our very own Don Nelson.