2009 Basketball hall of fame class (NCAA, coaches, playoffs, recruit)

[Canes2006Champs]

What do you guys think of this years class? Obviously Jordan is the main attraction for this years event, but David Robinson and John Stockton are two guys not to be overlooked.

Also Jerry Sloan and Women's coach Vivian Stringer will be inducted.

Michael Jordan, David Robinson among Naismith Hall of Fame Class of 2009 - ESPN

[jbub22]

I am feeling old, even though I am not. My sports heros are hall of famers. Wow, time flies. Quite honestly, this has been difficult to watch. This has to be the best class ever.

[cartgy]

I went to the enshrinement ceremony before they went to the Hall Of Fame, where they just gave speeches. The place went crazy when Jordan came up, it was awesome. But he did't really want anything to do with the city, he spent most of his time at Mohegan Sun. As a fan I was insulted, but it was still cool just to see him.

[PokerPlayer84]

Jordans speech was interesting. I still don't know why Jerry Sloan is in the HOF. He was a good coach for a long time but I would never call him a great coach.

[Canes2006Champs]

I thought it was cool hearing that David Thompson was chosen to introduce MJ into the hall.

One can only imagine where the NCSU basketball program would be today had the Wolfpack decided to seriously recruit him and try to have brought him to Raleigh.

[urban analysis therapist]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer84

Jordans speech was interesting. I still don't know why Jerry Sloan is in the HOF. He was a good coach for a long time but I would never call him a great coach.

There are plenty of players and coaches out there whose HOF credentials are sketchy at best. Think of guys like Lou Carnesecca, who coached the St. John's Redmen to 526 wins, tournament berths in every season he coached, and even a single Final Four appearance. HOF credentials? I'm a St. Johns fan myself, and even I don't believe that he should be in the HOF while players like Dennis Johnson and Bernard King aren't.

Charley Rosen, in a recent article, points out there is a sort of "Northeast mafia" that controls the HOF and determines who gets in. Their bias, according to Rosen, skew towards giving the college coaches, particularly out of the Big East conference, more leeway in going to the Hall. The "mafia" also gives more leeway to other Northeast basketball products.

That said, suppose we were more fair in determining who gets into the Hall. Does Sloan get in, now? Depends on your criteria. Personally, I would give more preference to the NBA than any other league, based on the fact that it is the pinnacle of basketball talent and play. IMO, NBA coaches handle the Herculean task of massaging millionaire egos, dealing with player changes every year (featuring millionaire players), and making sure everybody on the team is on the right page.

There are no doubt great coaches in the NCAA, but is it really fair to say that coaching a major program that can attract the best talent automatically makes you a HOF contender? While there are player egos to be soothed in the college game, the teams are by-and-large controlled by the coaches. It's a "my way or the highway" coaching approach - the players haven't earned anything, and they know it. If college players appear to play harder than their NBA counterparts, it's no coincidence: you either bust your ass out there, or you don't play, and subsequently, you don't make it to the NBA where you can earn millions.

Therefore, I find Sloan's coaching the Jazz to a playoff berth almost every year quite amazing. Sure, he had Stockton and Malone carrying the team in the 90's. And he's had great players like Williams and Boozer help carry the team nowadays (well, Boozer whenever he feels like it). But it's no coincidence that those teams were solid though not spectacular contenders every year. They were never also-rans who made it into the playoffs like the Atlanta Hawks these last couple of years: they battled as legitimate contenders every year in the West. If Sloan's teams didn't quite get over the hump and win a championship, it has more to do with lack of overwhelming talent than anything. I mean, Stockton and Malone were great, but they didn't compare to MJ and Pippen or Olajuwon during those two years talent-wise of desire-wise.

But the season that gets the most respect from me was the year the Jazz didn't have Stockton or Malone. It was a bunch of spare parts basically, and Sloan almost coached them to a playoff berth in the West. It's seasons like that which separate the greats like Sloan and Phil Jackson from the also-ran coaches like Rudy Tomjanovich (who was absolutely atrocious with the Lakers that one season).

In all, does Sloan deserve to be in the HOF? Personally, I would have waited a few more years to select Sloan. But if the likes of Carnesecca and Dick Vitale are in the Hall, Sloan definitely deserves to be in.

[PokerPlayer84]

Originally Posted by urban analysis therapist

There are plenty of players and coaches out there whose HOF credentials are sketchy at best. Think of guys like Lou Carnesecca, who coached the St. John's Redmen to 526 wins, tournament berths in every season he coached, and even a single Final Four appearance. HOF credentials? I'm a St. Johns fan myself, and even I don't believe that he should be in the HOF while players like Dennis Johnson and Bernard King aren't.

Charley Rosen, in a recent article, points out there is a sort of "Northeast mafia" that controls the HOF and determines who gets in. Their bias, according to Rosen, skew towards giving the college coaches, particularly out of the Big East conference, more leeway in going to the Hall. The "mafia" also gives more leeway to other Northeast basketball products.

That said, suppose we were more fair in determining who gets into the Hall. Does Sloan get in, now? Depends on your criteria. Personally, I would give more preference to the NBA than any other league, based on the fact that it is the pinnacle of basketball talent and play. IMO, NBA coaches handle the Herculean task of massaging millionaire egos, dealing with player changes every year (featuring millionaire players), and making sure everybody on the team is on the right page.

There are no doubt great coaches in the NCAA, but is it really fair to say that coaching a major program that can attract the best talent automatically makes you a HOF contender? While there are player egos to be soothed in the college game, the teams are by-and-large controlled by the coaches. It's a "my way or the highway" coaching approach - the players haven't earned anything, and they know it. If college players appear to play harder than their NBA counterparts, it's no coincidence: you either bust your ass out there, or you don't play, and subsequently, you don't make it to the NBA where you can earn millions.

Therefore, I find Sloan's coaching the Jazz to a playoff berth almost every year quite amazing. Sure, he had Stockton and Malone carrying the team in the 90's. And he's had great players like Williams and Boozer help carry the team nowadays (well, Boozer whenever he feels like it). But it's no coincidence that those teams were solid though not spectacular contenders every year. They were never also-rans who made it into the playoffs like the Atlanta Hawks these last couple of years: they battled as legitimate contenders every year in the West. If Sloan's teams didn't quite get over the hump and win a championship, it has more to do with lack of overwhelming talent than anything. I mean, Stockton and Malone were great, but they didn't compare to MJ and Pippen or Olajuwon during those two years talent-wise of desire-wise.

But the season that gets the most respect from me was the year the Jazz didn't have Stockton or Malone. It was a bunch of spare parts basically, and Sloan almost coached them to a playoff berth in the West. It's seasons like that which separate the greats like Sloan and Phil Jackson from the also-ran coaches like Rudy Tomjanovich (who was absolutely atrocious with the Lakers that one season).

In all, does Sloan deserve to be in the HOF? Personally, I would have waited a few more years to select Sloan. But if the likes of Carnesecca and Dick Vitale are in the Hall, Sloan definitely deserves to be in.

So he made his teams better so do a lot of coaches in the NBA? Sloan has 0 NBA Coach of the Year Awards. If Sloan why not Don Nelson or some coaching now who is good for a long time?

[urban analysis therapist]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer84

So he made his teams better so do a lot of coaches in the NBA? Sloan has 0 NBA Coach of the Year Awards. If Sloan why not Don Nelson or some coaching now who is good for a long time?

The NBA "Coach of the Year" award mostly only picks which coach happens to have turned around a team that year, or whose team won the most games. It's a media-voted award, and we all know how the media is not exactly the most attuned figures in the NBA.

Check out the last four COY winners: Mike Brown, Byron Scott, Sam Mitchell, and Avery Johsnon.
- Two of them (Johnson, Mitchell) are out of a job for being brusque, hard-ass generals whose attitudes may have helped their teams turn around and win, but who were subsequently run out of town by the same players. The fact is without understanding and flexibility, this style can only be a short-term approach before it ultimately backfires.
- Byron Scott was run out of town by Jason Kidd and co. with the Nets. There was also evidence that Chris Paul and co. were less than enamored with Scott as well. I'm not sure what exactly is going on, but I have a feeling that he either (a) takes too much credit for his team's success, or (b) is somehow diametrically hated by his team's star player.
- Mike Brown just isn't a good game coach. He's good for the regular season if he has a team like the Cavs. But being a defensive-minded coach, he has no idea how to run the offense. And from what I saw in the Cavs-Magic series, he has no idea how to run the defense either, at least when the going gets tough.

The fact is that the COY award is more of a popularity contest more than anything. Sloan should be in the HOF in spite of his 0 COY awards because he's kept his team in solid playoff or title contention for so long and so consistently, no small feat. Guys like Johnson and Mitchell might be able to do the same in the NCAA, where the coaches rule for the most part. But when millionaire egos are involved, it takes a lot more than dictatorial kicking and screaming to get the job done consistently well.



Should Nelson be in the HOF? Sure, why not? His numbers are good enough. But again, the HOF committee is sort of like a clique, and Nelson appears to have rubbed them the wrong way somehow.

[PokerPlayer84]

Originally Posted by urban analysis therapist

The NBA "Coach of the Year" award mostly only picks which coach happens to have turned around a team that year, or whose team won the most games. It's a media-voted award, and we all know how the media is not exactly the most attuned figures in the NBA.

Check out the last four COY winners: Mike Brown, Byron Scott, Sam Mitchell, and Avery Johsnon.
- Two of them (Johnson, Mitchell) are out of a job for being brusque, hard-ass generals whose attitudes may have helped their teams turn around and win, but who were subsequently run out of town by the same players. The fact is without understanding and flexibility, this style can only be a short-term approach before it ultimately backfires.
- Byron Scott was run out of town by Jason Kidd and co. with the Nets. There was also evidence that Chris Paul and co. were less than enamored with Scott as well. I'm not sure what exactly is going on, but I have a feeling that he either (a) takes too much credit for his team's success, or (b) is somehow diametrically hated by his team's star player.
- Mike Brown just isn't a good game coach. He's good for the regular season if he has a team like the Cavs. But being a defensive-minded coach, he has no idea how to run the offense. And from what I saw in the Cavs-Magic series, he has no idea how to run the defense either, at least when the going gets tough.

The fact is that the COY award is more of a popularity contest more than anything. Sloan should be in the HOF in spite of his 0 COY awards because he's kept his team in solid playoff or title contention for so long and so consistently, no small feat. Guys like Johnson and Mitchell might be able to do the same in the NCAA, where the coaches rule for the most part. But when millionaire egos are involved, it takes a lot more than dictatorial kicking and screaming to get the job done consistently well.



Should Nelson be in the HOF? Sure, why not? His numbers are good enough. But again, the HOF committee is sort of like a clique, and Nelson appears to have rubbed them the wrong way somehow.

You do realize that making the playoffs in the NBA is not that hard you have 8 teams from each conference that is 16 teams. So consistently a team consintley making the playoffs means little especially when you have 2 HOF players on your team. Sure he had a lot of wins but you do that when you coach 20 plus years. Championships are the main criteria for measuring coaches greatness and Sloan has not won one.

[urban analysis therapist]

Originally Posted by PokerPlayer84

You do realize that making the playoffs in the NBA is not that hard you have 8 teams from each conference that is 16 teams. So consistently a team consintley making the playoffs means little especially when you have 2 HOF players on your team. Sure he had a lot of wins but you do that when you coach 20 plus years. Championships are the main criteria for measuring coaches greatness and Sloan has not won one.

I agree that championships should be the measure of greatness.

That said, coaching an NBA team to almost 20 years-in-a-row of playoff contention is much harder than you think, despite what the numbers seem to tell you. Consider:
- 2 HOF players spent almost their entire careers with this one coach and this one team
- The team competed in the tough Western Conference and made 2 finals in the 90's. Then, with its 2 HOF players well past their prime, the team kept making the playoffs in a much tougher Western Conference.

The fact is that in the ego-driven superstar NBA, it is much harder to field a playoff team and title contender than you want to acknowledge. As the coach, at any moment, your franchise player(s) can quit on you, and the whole team will simply stop listening to you and stop playing hard. If your team underachieves relative to its goals, your head is the first one on the chopping block, while your players enjoy immunity because of their hefty contracts.

In other words, you have few things working on your side unless you win. And you need to continue to be a successful salesman of your goals and ideas to these players as well as new players year after year.