Sonics Rising: All Posts by Max ChuraisinThe sane voice of the Sonics' return to Seattlehttps://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/51481/sonicsrising-fav.png2014-09-29T09:00:05-07:00https://www.sonicsrising.com/authors/max-churaisin/rss2014-09-29T09:00:05-07:002014-09-29T09:00:05-07:00Are super teams super good?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/XbCKKwhSDFLLy5o6veJ21FMiAUo=/50x0:3945x2597/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/40281666/20140926_jla_bk4_344.jpg.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Ken Blaze-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>LeBron James and Kevin Love have joined Kyrie Irving in Cleveland to form the NBA's newest super team. What can past super teams, from the title winning Miami Heat to the disastrous 2013 L.A. Lakers, tell us about the success of top players coming together?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">With the arrival of <span>Kevin Love</span> and the return of <span>LeBron James</span> to a <a href="https://www.fearthesword.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Cleveland Cavaliers</a> squad already headed by <span>Kyrie Irving</span>, three of the NBA’s best players at their respective positions have joined together to create basketball’s newest "super team." As tends to be the case, whenever three elite players come together, visions of banner rising, confetti dropping, and championship parades fill the imagination of their fans. This is understandable as, per league rules, you cannot double team three different players at the same time.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet, expectations always seem to be tempered. These "super teams" are typically universally forecasted to finish among the top of the standings, but there’s always reservations about placing them at the very top. While the talent is undoubtedly there, what always emerges are questions about fit, chemistry, and depth.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Personally, I’ve always subscribed to what I view is the textbook definition of a championship team: two stars, with one of them being a big man, surrounded by quality veteran role players. In my mind, a super team results in a product that is less than the sum of the parts. However, with the seemingly never-ending talk of stars possibly coming together, I thought I’d closely examine how "super teams" have performed over the past twenty years.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But first, what exactly is a super team? One could argue, and fairly so, that a team like the 2009 and 2010 <a href="https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Los Angeles Lakers</a> were super teams. They did have three top players after all in <span>Kobe Bryant</span>, <span>Pau Gasol</span>, and Andrew Bynum. What I’m looking for, however, are star players who were brought together, not born together. Therefore, my description of a super team is this: at least three fairly elite players who came together within a span of two years, with at least two of those players coming through trade or free agency.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>1996-1997 <a href="https://www.thedreamshake.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Houston Rockets</a></b></p>
<p>You have to give former Rockets general manager Bob Weinhauer credit – he’s not afraid to pull the big moves to give his team a lift. He was like the opposite of Billy Beane, unless we think of Beane this year, where he was even the opposite of himself.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After being anchored by MVP Hakeem Olajuwon to a championship in 1994, the Houston Rockets found themselves in a season-long funk that made their chance at a repeat unlikely. In order to spark their team, Houston traded for eight-time All Star Clyde Drexler, helping them win a second consecutive championship while shocking the league in the process. A similar record the following season, however, did not result in the same Cinderella run, as the Rockets suffered a second-round sweep at the hands of the Seattle SuperSonics. With this disappointment, Weinhauer made an even bigger move, trading four players for ten-time All Star Charles Barkley.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Trading for Barkley was like David Blaine trying to hold his breath under water. Either become a part of history, or there’s no tomorrow. As expected, the Rockets became contenders in the 1996-97 season, despite Barkley and Drexler missing a combined 49 games. They went 57-25, tying Seattle for the second best record in the West, and reaching the Western Conference Finals. Unfortunately, they fell to the <a href="https://www.slcdunk.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Utah Jazz</a> in six games. Considering all three of their stars were in their mid-30s, the window for contention closed quickly. Injuries resulted in just a 41-41 record the next year, and then Drexler retired.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Still, while the Rockets may not have won a championship, they undoubtedly put together an outstanding team. In 1996-97, Olajuwon, Barkley, and Drexler were on the floor together for a mere 40 games accumulating a 32-8 record, or the equivalent of 66 wins. Though they did mesh well immediately, their chemistry was nowhere near that of a Utah Jazz team, who’s leading duo of John Stockton and Karl Malone were in the midst of their twelfth year together. Injuries are a part of the game, but the Houston trio had been more acclimated to one another, one can imagine that they may have been able to edge past the Jazz for a trip to the Finals. In that case, they would have gone against the <a href="https://www.blogabull.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Chicago Bulls</a>, who, despite Michael Jordan and a 69-13 record, did not possess a post presence that could have matched Olajuwon and Barkley.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2003-2004 Los Angeles Lakers</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After a disappointing season in which they won only 50 wins and fell in the second round, the Lakers made two groundbreaking moves to ensure a championship would come back to Hollywood. As if having the best center and the best shooting guard in the NBA in Shaquille O’Neal and <span>Kobe Bryant</span>, who both had already won three titles together, wasn’t enough, the Lakers added two veterans who were still chasing a ring in <span>Gary Payton</span> and Karl Malone. While both may have been aging, they had each recorded 22 points per game the past season.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Throughout the regular season, the Lakers suffered more heavily from off-court issues than on-court. In addition to all of the Big Four except for <span>Gary Payton</span> playing less than 70 games, tension between O’Neal and Bryant peaked, and Bryant was hindered by his sexual assault case. Through it all, Los Angeles managed to go 56-26 and reach the NBA Finals. They were the heavy favorites, but in an imitation of the Titanic, a long, exciting, and eventful ride completely sunk. In what is considered one of the biggest upsets in Finals history, the Lakers lost three straight games to the 54-28 <a href="https://www.detroitbadboys.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Detroit Pistons</a>, losing in five, with the sole win being an overtime victory.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yet, between everything personal, legal, systematical, and medical, the Lakers may very well have still won a championship in most years. When all four stars were together, the Lakers went 30-9. More impressively, they played like a championship team throughout the first three rounds. They beat both the team with the conference’s best record (Minnesota) and best point differential (San Antonio). In the Finals, the Lakers were the heavy favorites, but looking back, one could easily argue that they should have been the heavy underdogs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">People tend to forget just how dominant the Pistons were after trading for Rasheed Wallace. They registered a 17-4 record in games Wallace played, but more incredibly, they averaged 90.1 points per game, while limiting their opponents to 76.8. Based on those numbers, they had an 82-game win expectancy of 74 wins.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Consider this: the Detroit Pistons with Wallace had a point differential of +13.3, while the Lakers with all members of the Big Four were +5.3. Based on how well Detroit was playing, they should have been 8.0 point favorites. What was the average margin of victory the first four games of the Finals (Malone sat out the fifth)? Exactly 8.0.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With the Big Four all on the court, the Lakers throughout the regular season, playoffs, and Finals played like a 60 win team. If they hadn’t run into a Pistons team that was playing improbably well, they may still have won a championship. O’Neal reflected that if he and Bryant had stayed together, they probably won have won two or three more titles, and that could be very well true.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2007-2008 <a href="https://www.celticsblog.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Boston Celtics</a></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After a disastrous 24-58 season, the storied franchise, two decades removed from their last title, had reached just about the lowest point in its team’s history. With Paul Pierce, Boston had a star player, but nearing age 30, the likelihood that the then lifelong-Celtic would win a championship with the team was slim. After failing to get a top-two pick in the draft, the Celtics decided to go all-in, and acquired <span>Ray Allen</span> and <span>Kevin Garnett</span>, two veterans also stuck in franchises going nowhere.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The 2008 Boston Celtics proved to be to super teams what Pulp Fiction is to ensemble casts; put a bunch of talented people together, and there’s non-stop fun from beginning to end. The Celtics finished the 2008 season at 66-16 and defeated their rival Lakers in the finals. Over the next three seasons, they were consistent contenders, averaging 56 wins and coming one game short of a second championship in 2010. Injuries and age burdened the team in 2011-12, but despite a 39-27 finish, they mustered one last hoorah, taking the <a href="https://www.hothothoops.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Miami Heat</a> to seven games in the Eastern Conference Finals.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With that said, what’s more to ask? For some, one title may not be enough, and it’s not unreasonable to think they could have won more.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Despite Garnett missing much of the 2008-2009 season and all of the playoffs, the Celtics went 62-20 and challenged the eventual Eastern Conference championship <a href="https://www.orlandopinstripedpost.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Orlando Magic</a> to seven games in the semifinals. If Garnett had played in the postseason, I can’t imagine them losing to Orlando. I would also favor them over the Cleveland Cavaliers in the hypothetical Eastern Conference Finals considering they won three of four in the regular season and beat them the following year. Perhaps they lose to the Lakers in the Finals, but the Garnett injury deprived the Celtics of back-to-back Finals appearances</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for the next year, people like to speculate whether a healthy <span>Kendrick Perkins</span> would have made the difference in Game 7, in which the Celtics lost by four to lose the championship. It very well may have, but since the Lakers won the previous three home games by 8.7 points, and the Lakers managed just 32.5% from the field that game anyways, I highly doubt Perkin’s defense would have mattered.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What I will argue is that the 2009-2010 Celtics were a championship caliber team…if Shaquille O’Neal had been healthy. Some would argue that the trade of Kendrick Perkins removed chemistry and toughness from the team, but I would suggest that it was the overall lack of a quality center that hurt them. After all, the Celtics were still elite with O’Neal (28-9) while having Perkins didn’t exactly elevate their game (8-4). If O’Neal was at full health during the playoffs, or if they had not traded Perkins, would the Celtics have beaten the Heat in the second round? Perhaps not, as Miami looked invincible against the East. But the Celtics with Perkins or O’Neal during the regular season did go 3-0 against Miami, so it’s not unthinkable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2010-2011 Miami Heat</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When LeBron James and <span>Chris Bosh</span> made the decision to join <span>Dwyane Wade</span> in South Beach, the Miami Heat had conceivably the three best players in the NBA at their respective positions. While they made a liar out of James and his "Not one, not two, not three" promise, James’ time in Miami can’t be considered a failure. James and Bosh came to Miami and accomplished what they set out to do, and that was finally win a ring. Additionally, most fan bases would be thrilled at the idea of four straight Finals appearances, granted they weren’t all losses.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While some may consider the LeBron-era in Miami as a failure due to their inability to win more than two championships, I would not. Multiple teams each season can be great, but only one can be number one. Being the best team in the conference all four years, and being the best team in the league for half of those may not be the most satisfying in context, but it did what a super team does, and that’s be elite.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2012-2013 Los Angeles Lakers</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Trying to defend the 2013 Lakers is akin to trying to suggest Twilight is a cinematic masterpiece; there’s just not much that can be said.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Led by Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol, the Lakers were only two seasons removed from back-to-back championships. With the signing of All Stars Dwight Howard and <span>Steve Nash</span>, they were destined to win a championship at best, maybe lose in the second round if things took a turn for the worse. A 1-4 start, three different coaches, a sub-50 win season, a first round sweep, and an unfollow on Twitter all explain why these Lakers go down as the worst super team on this list. Yet, despite all that went wrong, things could have been a whole lot different.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For starters, they never had the right coach. As Uncle Ben stated to Peter Parker, "With great power comes great responsibility." The Lakers core had great power, but there was no one responsible enough to control them. <span>Mike Brown</span> couldn’t, and Mike D’Antoni couldn’t quite either. Does anyone think that if <span>Phil Jackson</span> had been hired, this team could have been true contenders? <span>Bernie Bickerstaff</span>, a quality but nothing-to-brag-about coach, went 4-1 with this team immediately after Mike Brown led them to a 1-4 start. Having the right coach matters.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, the team suffered greatly from injuries. Bryant, Howard, Gasol, and Nash were on the floor together for only 22 games. But here’s an extremely freaky fact: the Lakers were 8-14 in those games. I’d like to quote Monty Python for my next fun fact: "Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three." When exactly three of the Big Four played in a game, the Lakers were 31-14. That’s the equivalent of winning 57 games.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is four stars perhaps too much power? This could possibly go back to coaching, as Phil Jackson managed just fine with four talented players.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even with injuries, coaching, and a lack of cohesion, the disaster that was the 2013 Los Angeles Lakers still gave their fans hope as they turned it around in the latter part of the season. In the last 40 games, the Lakers finished 28-12 which, over the course of a season, equals 57 wins. If chemistry is a crucial factor in a team coming together, maybe, if nothing else, all the Lakers needed was time.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For all the criticism directed at the 2013 Lakers, would it be reasonable to think that if Phil Jackson was coach, and Pau Gasol and Steve Nash were healthy, that, with time, the Lakers would have looked like a championship by season’s end?</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>What we can take from this?</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Based on recent teams, it’s fair to say that when three or four elite players are on the court together, that squad will be tough to beat. However, that’s not exactly breaking news.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think if you’re a Cleveland Cavalier fan, you shouldn’t worry about whether Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, and LeBron James can coexist and develop chemistry with each other. Trust me, they will. Every team with perhaps the unusual exception of the 2013 Lakers were struck by other issues instead.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rather, what Cleveland should be scared of is whether Kevin Love, who missed 64 games two season ago, and/or Kyrie Irving, who has missed at least ten games every year of his career, will be stricken with injuries in this new Cavaliers era. They might also worry whether David Blatt, the successful international coach, will be able to manage NBA players.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Every team faces its challenges, but these super teams, with the exception of the ’13 Lakers, still manage to contend. Will the Cleveland Cavaliers be great? Yes. Will they win a championship? That is yet to be seen.</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/9/29/6855937/a-history-of-modern-nba-super-teamsMax Churaisin2014-05-15T09:09:32-07:002014-05-15T09:09:32-07:00The Best Coach for the Playoffs
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/U7p45tnO1arFSi-FXXVVkjP-lTk=/0x0:3999x2666/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/33001469/20140422_sal_ai1_015.JPG.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Soobum Im-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To win a championship, coaches almost always need to make sure their teams can play better in the postseason than they did in the regular season.
</p>
<p>Edited by Tiffany Villigan</p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s been said that the playoffs are where stars are born. Likewise, it’s also a place where coaches come to die.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The playoffs are a brand new season. With the exception of homecourt for a Game 7, what happened in the 82 games before becomes irrelevant. Winning 60 games in the regular season matters for not if a team doesn’t hoist the Larry O’Brien trophy in the end, or worse, doesn’t even get past the first round.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As much pressure as there is for the players, there’s also a lot at stake for the coaches. Playing a best-of-seven series really showcases one’s ability to strategize, work out matchups, make adjustments, and truly examine the tape. The coach is responsible for reallocating minutes, keying in on what works, and making sure the players aren’t affected by the postseason jitters. Like how a great regular season coach will have his team exceed preseason expectations, a great playoff coach will have his team exceed the expectations established once the regular season ends.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With that said, my curiosity led me to seek out the answer to who is the best postseason head coach, among men whose teams were in the second round. My methodology was simple. I compared the Simple Rating System (SRS) for a coach’s teams, which is margin of victory plus opponent’s margin of victory, during the regular season to the postseason. The SRS for the regular season is listed on Basketball-Reference, but I painstakingly calculated the playoff SRS on my own through the information provided by Basketball-Reference. This gave me an objective playoff rating that I was able to assign to each coach.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Of course, this isn’t a flawless system. Injuries and matchups influence how one may have played during the regular season or playoffs. As well, choosing to focus on SRS rather than wins is debatable. Still, I feel evaluating coaches this way provides at least a proximity to how well their teams perform in the "second season."</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I only looked at the coaches with multiple postseason appearances prior to this season (I didn’t include this year), which meant I only came with ratings for <span>Gregg Popovich</span>, <span>Doc Rivers</span>, <span>Scott Brooks</span>, <span>Erik Spoelstra</span>, and Frank Vogel. So what were the results? They were a bit surprising, in my opinion.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The highest-rated playoff coach was Erik Spoelstra, whose teams performed +1.76 points better in the playoffs than in the regular season. I guess this is understandable due to the fact that during the "Big Three" era, the <a href="https://www.hothothoops.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Miami Heat</a> had seven different series between 2011-13 where they’ve won in five games or less, including a 4-1 victory against the <a href="https://www.welcometoloudcity.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Oklahoma City Thunder</a> in 2012.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For all the talk of whether Vogel deserved to be fired if the <a href="https://www.indycornrows.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Indiana Pacers</a> lost to the <a href="https://www.peachtreehoops.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Atlanta Hawks</a> in the first round, Vogel actually ranked second among active playoff coaches, with a rating of +1.04. There’s a good chance that number goes down after this year, but considering Indiana put up a competitive series against Miami in each of the past two years, this shouldn’t be too much of a shock.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What is a shock, to an extent, is that one of the greatest coaches in NBA history is ranked third among the five coaches. Teams under Popovich only showed a +0.52 improvement between the regular season and postseason. Undoubtedly, Popovich is a great coach. In every full season he’s coached, his <a href="https://www.poundingtherock.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Spurs</a> have won 50 games (or the equivalent of 50 games) in every single season. However, there have also been three different seasons where, despite winning 50+ games, the Spurs have exited the playoffs after just the first round, including a 1-8 upset at the hands of the <a href="https://www.grizzlybearblues.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Memphis Grizzlies</a> in 2011.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just behind Popovich is Brooks, who records a +0.50. Brooks has been inconsistent in how competitive his teams have been. During some instances, like defeating the San Antonio Spurs four games in a row to make the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-finals" class="sbn-auto-link">NBA Finals</a> in 2012, or battling the eventual-champion <a href="https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Lakers</a> to six games in 2010, the Thunder looked like they "came to play." In other instances, such as losing in five to the <a href="https://www.mavsmoneyball.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Dallas Mavericks</a> in 2011 or Miami in 2012, there was more to be desired from his teams. One can also probably assume that if <span>Russell Westbrook</span> were healthy last year, Brooks’ rating would be higher.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To my surprise, there was only one coach in the negatives and that was Rivers, who posted a -0.03. As we saw this season, when the <a href="https://www.clipsnation.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Clippers</a> struggled to get past the <a href="https://www.goldenstateofmind.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Golden State Warriors</a> (though it’s important to note the non-basketball circumstances surrounding the team), the first round has not been Rivers’ shining moment. In 2008 and 2009, the <a href="https://www.celticsblog.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Boston Celtics</a> won 60+ games, yet were taken the distance in the opening round by teams who didn’t even have winning records. In the 2008 season, despite winning the championship, Rivers actually recorded a negative score because his team posted an SRS of 9.31 in the regular season, compared to 7.72 in the playoffs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So does any of this matter? As you’ve probably noticed, the point differentials are pretty small numbers. At the same time, though, a point differential of 1.0 is usually equivalent to about two and a half wins in an 82-game season. So while a number like +0.5 may not seem like it matters, and might not in the early rounds, it makes a difference when playing against a team of equal talent in the conference or NBA Finals.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The second question that comes to mind is whether these numbers are flukish or any indication of the abilities of a coach. Pop and Rivers are arguably the two best coaches in the NBA right now, but posted playoff improvements that were not outstanding. For purpose of comparison, I decided to calculate the postseason ratings for some past coaching greats.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Interestingly, three legends of the game posted very much identical scores. Red Auerbach rated a +1.22, Pat Riley a +1.21, and <span>Larry Brown</span> a +1.16. There was one coach, though, that far and away blew all the other coaches away in playoff rating. Who was that coach? Well, there’s only one person that it has to be.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Phil Jackson</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">During his time, Jackson posted a whopping +2.78. Even in 1996, when the record-setting 72-10 <a href="https://www.blogabull.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Chicago Bulls</a> had an SRS of 11.8, they played even better in the playoffs, putting up an SRS of 15.08. Five of the eleven championships Jackson won came without his team finishing the regular season with the top SRS in the league. Some could argue that Jackson was fortunate enough to play with veteran guys who had plenty of postseason experience, but Popovich has more or less been in the same boat, yet his teams didn’t elevate their game anywhere close to how Jackson’s teams did.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The regular season and the postseason are two separate but connected times. A superstar in the regular season is expected to perform like one in the playoffs, and their legacy is hurt if they fail to live up to the challenge. Similarly, a head coach is held to the same standard. To be a truly great coach, it’s not just how your team performs in the regular season, but if they can spur their team to take it to another level in the postseason. Coaches like Jackson, Auerbach, and Riley have all done that on the road to winning multiple championships. Now it’s time to see whether another coach, maybe Spoelstra, will be able to do the same.</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/5/15/5715246/which-nba-coaches-step-up-in-the-playoffsMax Churaisin2014-04-18T08:43:29-07:002014-04-18T08:43:29-07:00Reforming the NBA Playoffs
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/afbZcGyAArUlnaJDW0fDij5NibU=/8x0:3991x2655/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/31680245/20130609_ajl_su8_004.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The NBA postseason is the most wonderful time of year for many basketball fans. Can it be even better?
</p>
<p>Edited by Tiffany Villigan</p> <p class="MsoNormal">If you’re a fan of NBA basketball, it is the most wonderful time of the year. After five and a half months of blood, sweat, tears, flops, benchings, firings, and Shaqtin-a-Foolings, we bid farewell to the regular season. We bid farewell to the rebuilding/tanking teams, the aging teams, the dysfunctional teams, and the <a href="https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Los Angeles Lakers</a>. Finally, we get to welcome the main event.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello Playoffs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The playoffs give us a chance to watch only the best of the best. It excites us every game and every day, keeping us at the edge of our seats from tip-off until when the clock hits zero. Every series is a championship series, as any team can win and anything can happen. No matter what happened in the regular season, the playoffs allow us to believe that every team has a chance to lift up the Larry O’Brien trophy at the end.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Or at least that’s how we would like to think of the playoffs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The truth is, as exciting as the postseason is, it can also be kind of a bore. It can provide some unnecessary games that are more of formalities rather than actual competition. Do we really care to see a best-of-seven series between a 60-win team and a losing one? Also, let’s face it, the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-playoffs" class="sbn-auto-link">NBA playoffs</a> last too long. Way too long.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This isn’t to say that I think the NBA playoffs are in need of a major overhaul. Among all the problems facing the sports world, this isn’t at the forefront. Still, I think the basketball postseason could use some tinkering. I like to think of it more as reform than anything revolutionary.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Extend the regular season.</b></p>
<p>The first change I would make relates to the regular season rather than to the postseason. I would extend the season by four games. I know, an 86-game season feels kind of weird. It just doesn’t seem right. To find a time when teams didn’t play 82 games (with the exception of strike-shortened years), one would have to go back to the 1966-67 season. To put it in perspective, the now deceased Wilt Chamberlain won MVP that year.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A slightly longer season makes sense to me, though. For one, more games provides a larger sample to accurately gauge a team’s ability. A lot can happen in just four games, and being able to sustain success for just a little while longer can really distinguish one team from another.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The primary reason I arrived at an 86 game season, however, comes from the want of more equal competition. Right now, every team plays opponents in the opposing conference twice, but plays teams within their conference either three or four times. This provides a degree of inequality in a team’s strength of schedule which, when considering playoffs may come down to a single game, shouldn’t be a factor. If every team plays each team within its conference exactly four times, the influence of scheduling is removed from the equation.</p>
<p><b>Reduce the number of teams that make the playoffs.</b></p>
<p>Once the regular season ends, my second change would come into effect. Instead of sixteen teams, let’s reduce it to twelve. If the playoffs are supposed to showcase the best teams, how is it that over half the league gains entrance?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also, reducing the number of teams in the playoffs lowers the chance that a losing team will be participating. Going back to the 2004-05 season, when the NBA expanded to its current 30 teams, not a single team that has earned a top-six seed has had a losing record. However, that’s not to say it won’t happen. Due to the East-West disparity, there have actually been multiple 41-41 teams who wound up with the sixth seed, all in the East.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">From a historical perspective, six is also a good cut-off point because the lowest seed to ever win an NBA title was the 1994-95 <a href="https://www.thedreamshake.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Houston Rockets</a>, who, with a 47-35 record, finished sixth in the West. With that said, six it is.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Change how teams are matched up.</b></p>
<p>So how do you organize a postseason with six teams? First, seeding is dependent upon win-loss record. The only exception is that division winners are automatically in the playoffs, though that won’t affect their seeding. Then again, if the regular season is expanded to 86 games and each team in a conference plays every other team the same number of times, it does make divisions pointless.</p>
<p>With every team seeded, the bracket will look like that of the <a style="background-color: #ffffff;" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-playoffs" class="sbn-auto-link">NFL playoffs</a>. The top two seeds in each conference get a bye, while the other four teams battle it out. There’s one alteration, though.</p>
<p>Taking a page out of the D-League playbook, I would give the top seeds the opportunity to select their opponent. In the first round, the No. 3 seed will pick whether they want to play No. 5 or No. 6, and in the second round, the No. 1 seed will get to pick between the winners of round one. The reason for this is threefold.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One, I want to give top teams the reward of opportunity. For instance, in 2007, the 67-15 <a href="https://www.mavsmoneyball.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Dallas Mavericks</a> were squared up against the 42-40 <a href="https://www.goldenstateofmind.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Golden State Warriors</a> in the 1-8 matchup. There’s no doubt that Dallas was a superior team, but considering Golden State swept the season series, don’t you think Dallas might have preferred to play a different team?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Two, aside from allowing teams to pick a more favorable matchup if there’s one apparent, freedom of choice can allow teams to take into account external factors such as injuries, trades, and streaks. For instance, 50-32 teams are not the same if one ended the season on a six-game losing streak and the other on a six-game winning streak.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Three, choice prevents teams from purposely losing in order to get a more favorable matchup. Back in 2011, some brought up the idea that the <a href="https://www.grizzlybearblues.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Memphis Grizzlies</a> were trying to get a lower seed so that they could face the <a href="https://www.poundingtherock.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">San Antonio Spurs</a>, whom they eventually upset in the first round. This might not have happened in my alternate playoffs as, one, Memphis wouldn’t have made the playoffs to begin with as a result of being the eighth seed, but if they were a higher seed, San Antonio may not have picked them.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Shorten the first round.</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b></b>Matchups being determined, I propose the first round being best-of-three. Making it best-of-seven, or even five, might be disadvantageous to the bye teams, as too much time off basketball might make them a little rusty. I wouldn’t dare suggest just a single game, because I don’t want one off-night or one injured player to cause a team to lose. Best-of-three isn’t perfect, but it’s the best solution here. The top seeds have some time to rest, and three is good, if only for the fact that it’s more than one.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In addition, this revised first round eliminates anywhere between 20-48 playoff games from the current first round. While this wouldn’t be beneficial financially, I think it improves the viewing experience. It shortens the postseason by about a week, which might help prevent fans from experiencing viewer fatigue stemming from the number of games played. Every game in the first round should also be meaningful and competitive, with the magnitude of each game being increased since there would only be three.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Conclusion</b></p>
<p>After the first round, the playoffs would proceed as normal. Every round would be best-of-seven, following the 2-2-1-1-1 format.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My proposal isn’t the perfect solution, especially for those in league marketing who care about revenue, or fans who enjoy watching as many basketball games as possible. Still, I think it serves the purpose of adding more respectability, competitiveness, and fairness to the postseason. Some may not be content that it doesn’t address the East-West disparity, and it may seem a little too radical in departing from tradition. Perhaps it was a little bit more than just reform after all.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There’s no such thing as the perfect postseason. Even if there were, it would be because of the teams’ play, not the format. However, it’s still fun to look at an alternate playoff system. Love it or hate it, this is my opinion. What’s yours?</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/4/18/5618938/how-to-improve-the-nba-postseasonMax Churaisin2014-04-13T06:24:08-07:002014-04-13T06:24:08-07:00Hey Hall, Where's Jack?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ktEurWhG3itBcwJPvMQFDwcnhI8=/138x170:1081x799/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/31554271/sikma_card_1.0.jpg" />
</figure>
<p>Jack Sikma is a legend to those in Seattle, but he's more than just that. He's a Hall of Famer.
</p>
<p>Edited by Tiffany Villigan</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Naismith Hall of Fame announced on Monday its next batch of folks to be enshrined in basketball immortality. To the surprise of very few but to the dismay of many, or maybe just those in Seattle, Spencer Haywood was not one of them.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For me, Haywood belongs in the Hall of Fame. SonicsRising, back in February, discussed pretty thoroughly and convincingly why. It’s a shame he’s not in it, as it was last year, and it probably will be next year as well. But drowned in the disappointment of Haywood’s absence (Or should we call it the Hall’s loss?) is the travesty of another Sonics legend who won’t be able to give his acceptance speech in Springfield.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unlike Haywood, whose name gets mentioned every year, our forgotten man probably won’t ever get brought up in more than a couple of national newspapers each year. If he did get enshrined, he would give his speech at a place only about a two-and-a-half-hour drive from where he was born. So who is this man?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You know who I’m talking about. It’s <span>Jack Sikma</span>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The man could do it all, and had a unique skillset for a guy his size. Along with being able to score and rebound, Sikma was a talented passer, free-throw shooter, and by the end of his career, was even capable of knocking down the long ball.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While he’s no Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, during his prime, he was all you could ask for out of a pivot. Sikma was a seven-time All Star, and during those years, averaged 17.7 PPG, 11.4 RPG, 3.5 APG, to go along with a steal and a block.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">During that span, between 1978 and 1985, only eight players averaged at least 17 points and 11 rebounds. They were Moses Malone, Larry Bird, Ralph Sampson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Artis Gilmore, Jeff Ruland, Robert Parish, and finally, Jack Sikma. With the exception of Ruland, who had only three seasons where he played half the games, all of the rest have been inducted into Springfield.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When you include a three assists criteria into the mix, only Bird, Ruland, and Sikma remain. Throw in one assist and one rebound, and Sikma stands alone.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For those who are not content with a mere look at his prime and place a premium on career totals, Sikma scored 17,287 points (79<sup>th</sup> in NBA history), gathered 10,816 rebounds (30<sup>th</sup>) and blocked 1,048 shots (78<sup>th</sup>). Only twelve hardwood legends ever put up 17,000-10,000-1,000. Eight of them are already in the Hall of Fame. Three of them (Shaquille O’Neal, <span>Tim Duncan</span>, and <span>Kevin Garnett</span>) will surely be. And then there’s Sikma.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, to the Honors Committee, why not bestow Sikma with your distinguished honor? Is it because he’s not a winner? He did win a championship with the Sonics in 1979. Was there a problem with his defense? Considering he made the 1982 All-Defense team and is Top 20 all-time in defensive board, probably not.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So what is it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even Basketball-Reference, which uses an objective methodology to determine one’s merits, pegs Sikma’s Hall of Fame Probability at 65.9%.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m not saying Sikma should be on the Mt. Rushmore of NBA centers, but wouldn’t you say he belongs in the Hall? Of course, as a Sonics fan, I have my biases. But his excellence is recognized by the great Shaquille O’Neal himself. When asked by Branson Wright of Cleveland.com to <a target="_blank" href="http://youtu.be/_By2-Z3tOms">name the five greatest centers in NBA history</a>, he listed Olajuwon, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Russell, and Malone. He followed that by saying, "But you can’t forget about Mr. David Robinson. You can’t forget about Chief Robert Parish. You can’t forget about Jack Sikma."</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What do all the players listed by O’Neal have in common? They’re all in the Hall of Fame. Except for Sikma.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So how about it, Honors Committee? How about in 2015, you guys induct both Haywood and Sikma into Springfield? I’m sure the towhead is already familiar with the area.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But if not, I want to let Jack and Spencer know this: for whatever it’s worth, you guys are Hall of Famers in our book.</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/4/13/5591234/jack-sikma-belongs-in-the-hall-of-fameMax Churaisin2014-03-31T06:00:03-07:002014-03-31T06:00:03-07:00Wilkens or Karl?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/aw7TbVqSI7eLVkjCNjv8RCqniaY=/190x149:983x678/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/30907069/120085156.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Otto Greule Jr</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A close look at all the men who have roamed the sidelines in Seattle. Part VI concludes the series and finally answers the question: who is the greatest coach in team history?
</p>
<p>Edited by Joanna Nesgoda</p> <p class="MsoNormal">We’ve looked over fourteen coaches in Seattle SuperSonics history. Now comes time for the big question: who’s the greatest?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This, to me, is the most debatable question pertinent to the team in Green and Gold. It’s like going to Boston and asking which player is better between Bill Russell or Larry Bird, or perhaps going to Los Angeles and choosing between Magic Johnson, <span>Kobe Bryant</span>, or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. The difference is, in the case of Seattle, the greatest player is clear (<span>Gary Payton</span> for those wondering), but the case of the coach is not.</p>
<p>We went over Lenny Wilkens. We went over George Karl. So who’s the man? Who is, as Leonardo DiCaprio in <i>Titanic</i> would say, the king of the world…or at the least the king of Seattle…more or less.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After five articles, there’s no more waiting. Squatch, drum roll please.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The title of "The Greatest Coach in Seattle SuperSonics History" goes to…</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lenny Wilkens.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He was the only man to serve in the dual role of player-coach. He was the only man to coach two different stints with the team. And he was the only man to coach an NBA Champion team in Seattle. Now, he’ll add team’s greatest coach to his resume, at least in my humble opinion.</p>
<p>While the case can be made for either him or Karl, here’s why I made the decision I did.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. <b>Wilkens has a superior postseason record to Karl.</b> This is probably the main argument for anyone who prefers Wilkens to Karl. Needless to say, if you’ve won a championship, you have seen some sort of success in the playoffs. And any Sonics fan of course knows of the playoff shortcomings when it comes to Karl’s teams of the ‘90s.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, Wilkens won just one championship. It’s not like he went all Red Auerbach in Seattle, winning one title after another after another. And while Karl’s teams may have been continuously disappointing and underachieving when it mattered most, he still did reach the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-finals">NBA Finals</a> once in 1996, in addition to coming one game short in 1993.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It’s clear Wilkens is superior to Karl in the postseason, but I began to wonder: is the disparity really that great?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, it is.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let’s put it this way. In 1994, 1995, 1997, and 1998, Karl won 238 regular season games.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just 13 postseason victories.</p>
<p>In 1979, Wilkens won 52 regular season games.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">14 postseason victories. Okay, it was 12, but they had a first-round bye, which would have been an additional two games.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2. Karl’s teams in the regular season may not actually have been more dominant than Wilkens’ teams. </b>Anyone arguing in favor of Karl will point to the fact that he has the most wins and highest winning percentage in team history. Sure, playoffs were a bummer, but for many seasons, the five and a half months prior to that were pretty glorious.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The most wins a Lenny Wilkens coached Sonics team ever reached was 56, a number Karl exceeded five different times. Therefore, over the course of an 82-game season, Karl was superior to Wilkens. Or was he?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Do any of you folks remember from your college stats course what a z-score is? As a refresher for any mathematicians out there, it’s (x-mean)/standard deviation. For those fans who don’t want to mix sports and school, a z-score a way of measuring quality, based on variation in the group. For example, winning 50 games in a league where every single team is within a couple games of .500 produces a higher z-score than, say, winning 60 games where wins range from 15 to 65.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let’s compare the most successful three year span for both the coaches. For Wilkens, we’ll call it 1978, ’79, and ’80, and for Karl, ’96, ‘97’ and ’98. A simple reading of winning percentage is as follows:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wilkens: .700, .634, and .683</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Karl: .780, .695, and .744</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If we average those winning percentages out, including weighing Wilkens’ 1978 partial season as a full season, then Karl edges Wilkens out, .740 to .672.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When using z-score instead, the numbers we get show a different story:</p>
<p>Wilkens: 1.80, 1.30, 1.20</p>
<p>Karl: 1.64, 1.02, 1.29</p>
<p>With this method, the advantage is Wilkens over Karl, 1.44 to 1.32. Therefore, not only did Wilkens have greater postseason success, but when looking at the regular season through a different lens, he may have been superior as well.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>3. Wilkens’ addition saw greater improvement to the team than Karl’s did. </b>When Wilkens replaced Hopkins, the Sonics were "give the 2014 Philadelphia Sixers a run for their money" bad. Okay, maybe not<i> that</i> bad. Still, they were a measly 5-17, on pace to have their worst season in team history. With Wilkens though, things turned around immediately. Under his leadership, a team with a .227 winning percentage played the rest of the season at a .700 clip. Has anything like that ever happened before in the history of the NBA?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not to add more math, but .700-.227 equals .473, which is 39 games. A team played 39 wins better because of a simple coaching change. How is that even possible? It would be like if Justin Bieber ended up coming in second in a 2014 Most Admired poll. Events like that are unimaginable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">To his credit, the Sonics also showed vast improvement when Karl replaced K.C. Jones in the middle of the 1991-92 season. A .500 team at the time of his hiring, the Sonics played at a pace of .643 the remainder of the season. At a rate, the team was 12 games better off under Karl than Jones, which, while excellent, doesn’t rival Wilkens’ improbable resurrection of a team on life support.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>4. Wilkens did more with less</b>. Both men were fortunate to have an excellent group of players, many of which are considered Sonics legends. Wilkens had the likes of Gus Williams, Fred Brown, <span>Jack Sikma</span>, and Dennis Johnson. Karl had <span>Gary Payton</span>, Shawn Kemp, and Detlef Schrempf.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It is debatable which group one would rather have to form the core of their team, but in my personal opinion, I would pick the latter. A duo of a tenacious point guard and a hyper-athletic big man, in addition to a versatile sharp-shooting forward? Yes, please. Though I definitely have no problem with the other option either.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>5. Finally, management appreciated Wilkens more than Karl did</b>. Wilkens was so respected that when Al Bianchi resigned as head coach of the team, Wilkens was trusted to take over the reins as player and coach. Then after he was traded away, he ended up back with the team to coach them to a championship. His final season in Seattle was unideal, with the team finishing 31-51. However, he was kept around as general manager and vice-president. The message behind all this? Wilkens was valuable.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On the other hand, when Karl was gone, he was gone for good. Whether it was not being a right fit, or not being trustworthy, management felt they could do without him.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I love Lenny Wilkens. I love George Karl. They are both, undoubtedly, elite coaches. However, at the end of the day, I can confidently say: Lenny Wilkens, not only are you an NBA Champion, you are a champion among Sonics coaches.</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/3/31/5565244/ranking-greatest-coaches-supersonics-history-part-vi-legendsMax Churaisin2014-03-27T06:37:08-07:002014-03-27T06:37:08-07:00Looking Back at Coach George Karl
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/sdh7SVfTR4wkqYJV9f5S_qlz6ag=/0x0:4000x2667/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/30567879/20130508_jla_aq2_057.0.jpg" />
</figure>
<p>A close look at all the men who have roamed the sidelines in Seattle. Part V examines the coaching career of the man who holds the team record for both wins and winning percentage.
</p>
<p>Edited by Tiffany Villigan</p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Choosing the best coach in Seattle SuperSonics’ history is kind of like choosing between Homer Simpsons’ co-workers. Would you rather be alongside Carl or Lenny?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>I’d be fine teaming up with either Carl or Lenny, just as I’d be fine being coached by either <span>George Karl</span> or Lenny Wilkens. If I had to pick one, though, who would it be?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Last week, I took a look at Lenny Wilkens, the only player-coach in team history, as well as the only coach to bring an NBA championship to Seattle. This week, it’s time to talk about the man whom a good number of fans consider at the head of the pack, and fairly so. On the surface, it’s easy to see why. His record, at least for the regular season, is as good as it gets and he led what some consider the most prominent period in team history.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span>Coaching Career, 1992-1998 (384-150, .719)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>When management decided that K.C. Jones, a long-time coach with two championship rings under his belt, was not a right fit with a young Sonics squad, an important decision needed to be made on who was going to replace him. Who would be the man that could bring together and unleash the potential of a youthful, but seemingly stagnant, squad?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>According to the Associated Press, "Gary St. Jean, an assistant coach with the <a href="https://www.goldenstateofmind.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Golden State Warriors</a>, was believed to be among the contenders. Other names mentioned as possibilities were former NBA head coaches Doug Collins and Mike Fratello, and <a href="https://www.postingandtoasting.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">New York Knicks</a> assistant coach Paul Silas."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Among those names listed were an esteemed assistant, a man who coached a young Michael Jordan within two games of the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-finals" class="sbn-auto-link">NBA Finals</a>, a former Coach of the Year, and a member of the Sonics' sole championship team. So which one was the pick?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>None of the above.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Instead, the Sonics decided to go with an exotic choice. Literally. They went across the Atlantic Ocean, into Spain, and tapped George Karl, the head coach of Real Madrid.</span><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Karl was a very interesting choice to say the least. The 40-year-old had four years of head coaching experience in the NBA and compiled a mere 119-176 record during that time. He also became the definition of a sophomore slump. In his first year coaching the <a href="https://www.fearthesword.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Cleveland Cavaliers</a>, he led them to an improved 36-46 record, only to be fired after they regressed to 25-42 the following year. Likewise, the Golden State Warriors went 42-40 in year one with Karl, only to fall to 16-48 in year two, leading Karl to resign mid-season in 1988.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Still, Karl did show a knack for being able to elevate a team, coming in second in Coach of the Year voting in 1987. His time off from the NBA also may have helped the passionate coach, as it showed the league that he could direct an elite team. At the time Seattle hired him, Real Madrid was 17-7, and the year before that, he coached the Albany Patroons of the CBA to a 50-6 record.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>The Sonics franchise put a lot of trust in Karl, and that trust paid off. The two seasons before Karl arrived saw Seattle finish 41-41. When Karl took reins of the team, they were 20-20. It seemed like no changes, no draft picks, no free agency could stop Seattle from being home to totally mediocre basketball. Karl wouldn't have it that way.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>As I’ve mentioned before, the success of a coach is dependent upon whether he can get a team to improve and maximize its talent. Karl did that almost immediately. With winning streaks of four, five, and five, the Sonics finished the 1991-92 season at 47-35 (27-15 under Karl) and made it into the playoffs. As a sign of how far the team progressed in just a short time, they vanquished their first round opponents, a Golden State Warriors team with a 55-27 record, in four games before losing to the <a href="https://www.slcdunk.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Utah Jazz</a> in the next round.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>The following year provided the opportunity to see how well the Sonics could perform under a full season with Karl on the sidelines. To the relief of everybody in the Emerald City, the second-year curse of Karl proved to be over. At 55-27, Seattle wound up with the third best record in the West, were ranked fourth in Offensive Rating, second in Defensive Rating, and had the best point differential in the entire league. The culmination of one of the most successful seasons in team history ended with a loss to the <a href="https://www.brightsideofthesun.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Phoenix Suns</a>, the team with the best record and regular season MVP, in the deciding game of the Western Conference Finals.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>The next five years showed what Karl could do with a core of <span>Gary Payton</span>, Shawn Kemp, and Detlef Schrempf. Unfortunately, it also showed what he could not do.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>As a student of history, it’s important to bring up the heroes and the villains, the winners and the losers, the good and the bad, and tell the entire story. As a sports fan, I have the right to omit what pains me most.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>To keep it simple, the 1993-94 and 1994-95 seasons saw the team achieve their two winningest seasons in franchise history at that point. Needless to say, as any Seattlelite would know, the endings were…unideal, and that's putting it gently.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Karl may have very well been fired in 1995 after the playoff disappointments, but the team decided to hold on to him and it paid off. For anyone who claims Karl is the greatest coach in SuperSonics history, most likely they will point to the 1995-96 season as his shining moment. Seattle finished 64-18, a franchise high in excellence, and made it to the NBA Finals for only the third time. There, they challenged arguably the greatest team, greatest player, and greatest coach of all-time, taking the Chicago Bulls to six games, with both their victories being by double digits.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>The following two seasons were like ’94 and ’95 all over again, but with a little less misery. Despite 57-25 and 61-21 records in the two seasons, after dropping four games in a row, including two at home, against the <a href="https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Los Angeles Lakers</a> in the 1998 Western Conference Semifinals, Karl’s act had grown old and his departure was written in the stars.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Though popular with players, the front office was not his biggest advocate. What was the reason for not bringing Karl back? The obvious reason was his spotty playoff track record. In the words of President Wally Walker, "I think for us to have a chance to win a title, the current system, style, will not get it done."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>At the same time, there was a sense of mistrust between the head coach and management. Walker stated, "I did say to his agent…if word of our conversation gets out, I can only assume that George doesn't really want the job. And it did get out."</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Fit or trust, Karl was out and <span>Paul Westphal</span> was in. If Karl wasn't the right fit, Westphal sure wasn't either. While Karl may not have taken the Sonics far in the playoffs, at least he could say he got them there, unlike his successor, who fell short with a 25-25 record in the lockout-shortened 1999 season.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><b><span>Legacy</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Based on the regular season, Karl is the greatest coach in SuperSonics history. He won more games and had a better winning percentage than any other coach the city has ever seen. One might say his teams in Seattle played close to the level of the '90s <a href="https://www.blogabull.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Bulls</a> or the Los Angeles Lakers of the new century. Throw in the playoffs, though, and it’s a completely different story.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNoSpacing"><span>Karl will always be remembered for taking a franchise that seemed stuck in mud and making them contenders (at least until April) year in and year out. He indeed ruled over a glorious time of dominant Sonics basketball. However, it will always be hard to talk about Karl without bringing up his playoff failures. </span></p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/3/27/5540604/ranking-greatest-coaches-in-supersonics-history-part-v-karlMax Churaisin2014-03-20T05:00:02-07:002014-03-20T05:00:02-07:00Looking Back at Coach Lenny Wilkens
<figure>
<img alt="Lenny Wilkens throws out the first pitch at Sonics Celebration Night, hosted by the Mariners, July 29, 2011" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/3G0mc0qc6WooI_QgiVoCUqyIHZM=/590x211:980x471/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/30190191/120085156.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Lenny Wilkens throws out the first pitch at Sonics Celebration Night, hosted by the Mariners, July 29, 2011 | Otto Greule Jr</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A close look at all the men who have roamed the sidelines in Seattle. Part IV examines the coaching career of the man who led the SuperSonics to their first and only championship.
</p>
<p>Edited by Tiffany Villigan</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Batman or Superman? Bacon or chocolate? Elvis or Michael Jackson? Karl or Wilkens?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These are some of the questions that have dominated the American dinner table throughout history. Okay, perhaps not the last one. For any Sonics fan, though, that question is the equivalent of some of the great debate topics in popular culture.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Who is the greatest coach in Seattle SuperSonics history? You can make a case for either one of them. <span>George Karl</span> has the highest winning percentage in club history and three 60-win seasons to his name. However, Lenny Wilkens can write on his resume that he led the only SuperSonics championship team. Their accomplishments may cause many people to declare them ranked 1A and 1B.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m not one of those people.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the second half of my series examining and ranking the coaches of team history, I examine the hardest question of all: Karl or Wilkens? Breaking away from my usual format of simply going up the list, I thought I’d begin by surveying the coaching legacy of each of the distinguished leaders individually. I do this partially because I feel each man deserves his own piece, and also because I’ve learned that long pieces will quickly lose the attention of the average sports fan.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I begin with the coach who's been with the team since nearly the beginning. Calm, cool, and a snazzy dresser, let’s take a look at Lenny Wilkens.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Coaching Career, 1969-72 & 1977-85 (478-402, .543)</b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When Al Bianchi left the team in the summer of '69, general manager Dick Vertlieb didn’t look too far or spend too much time figuring out a replacement. Just a day after Bianchi’s sudden departure, Vertlieb said he already began considering Wilkens, his star point guard, for the dual role of player-coach. Though surprised by the offer, Wilkens, who had only been with the team for one season, fortunately accepted.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wilkens’ first stint with the Sonics, lasting all of three years, was unspectacular, compiling just a 121-125 record and no playoff appearances. That’s not to suggest it wasn’t a job well-done, though. Every season he reigned as a player-coach saw a win increase from the season before, as he inherited a 30-win team and bumped that total to 36, 38, and finally, 47.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In addition, Wilkens was able to oversee progress year in and year out despite what the team had to endure. From Bob Rule’s potentially superstar career being derailed due to a tragic Achilles injury, to the court trials of Spencer Haywood, Wilkens had to manage a roster that was continuously morphing in its character. As a matter of fact, only five players from Wilkens’ initial season, including himself, were still on the roster by the end of his first term.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Perhaps even more indicative of a coach’s impact is not how the team performs while he’s the coach, but how the team performs once he leaves. Following the 1971-72 season, Wilkens was given a choice to be either solely a coach or solely a player. He chose to keep on playing but then was shipped off, along with forward Barry Clemens, to Cleveland for All-Star point guard Butch Beard.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">With that trade, it was like back to year one all over again. After coming off a franchise best 47-35, the Sonics dropped 21 games, finishing 26-56, their worst record since their inaugural season.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How much of that decline was due to the loss of Wilkens? In all fairness, losing Wilkens the player probably contributed more losses than losing Wilkens the coach. In his last season playing in Seattle, he averaged 18.0 points per game, along with a career-high 9.6 assists per game. The blow of losing the future Hall of Famer wasn’t softened by the fact that Beard looked anything but an All-Star, putting up a meager 6.6 PPG in his only season in Seattle. It also didn’t help that Wilkens’ replacement on the sideline, Tom Nissalke, was so incompetent that his players wanted, and succeeded in getting, him fired. Still, it’s hard to believe that Wilkens would not have been able to manage a team with Haywood, an emerging Fred Brown, and a veteran Dick Snyder significantly better than his successor.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What’s another indication Wilkens did a good job? His team wanted him back. After retiring from playing and a short stint as head coach of the <a href="https://www.blazersedge.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Portland Trail Blazers</a>, Wilkens returned to the team as director of player personnel. Following a disastrous start to the 1977-78 season, in which the team managed a 5-17 record in Bob Hopkins’ first year as coach, Hopkins received the axe. With the club on a sinking ship, Wilkens put on his Superman cape and came to the rescue, taking up his old role as head coach.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Improving a team that is fighting to stay out of last place is no easy task. Just ask Mike D’Antoni or Brett Brown. Time is needed to nurture and grow a team, and progress tends to drag on and be painful.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Then again, perhaps not if the man in charge of the team is Lenny Wilkens.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He took a squad that had only won five games in 22 tries, and immediately they won six consecutive to begin Wilkens’ second stint with the Sonics, with the first three of those games being on the road. Seattle won their first 11 of 12 games with Wilkens back on the sideline, including two games by at least 32 points. This was the beginning of the first golden era in team history.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Under Wilkens, the team that looked doomed for the cellar played 42-18 the rest of the way, or the equivalent of 57 wins throughout the course of an entire season. In comparison, under Hopkins, the Sonics were on pace to win 19 games. For perspective, a 38 game difference is even greater than what the <a href="https://www.brightsideofthesun.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Phoenix Suns</a> achieved in 2004-05 after the acquisition of Steve Nash. Of course, the difference here is that the Sonics didn’t have to add an MVP-caliber player.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Seattle wound up making the <a href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-finals" class="sbn-auto-link">NBA Finals</a> before losing to the Washington Bullets in seven games. The next year saw the team improve to a franchise record 52-30, forcing a rematch against Washington for the championship. This time, they won, winning four in a row after dropping Game One. Like a mechanic turning a junkyard mess into a Maserati, Wilkens transformed and led the SuperSonics to their first ever NBA championship.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The following year saw even more improvement, as the team finished 56-26. Unfortunately, they ran into Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and the <a href="https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Los Angeles Lakers</a>. The remainder of Wilkens' tenure would see the team gradually decline, as Seattle saw the departure of Dennis Johnson, the departure of Gus Williams, and the slow aging of Fred Brown. After the Sonics finished the 1984-85 season with just a 31-51 record, management felt it best to move in a new direction. Out was Wilkens, and in was <span>Bernie Bickerstaff</span>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Legacy</b></p>
<p><b> </b></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Though Wilkens’ ending wasn’t exactly one out of a fairy tale, it didn’t need to be, as he had already cemented his place in team history. He did what coaching greats like Mike Holmgren, Lou Piniella, and George Karl could never do, and that was bring a championship trophy to Seattle.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Not only that, but he did it with a team that really lacked the look of a champion. Though DJ, Williams, Brown, and <span>Jack Sikma</span> were all phenomenal players in their own right, they never possessed the superstar power akin to that of Michael Jordan or LeBron James. When the Sonics won, it was because of the team, not any individuals.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At the time of his departure, Wilkens had given Seattle one title, two Finals appearances, and their four winningest seasons in team history up to that point. Wilkens, perhaps just as much as any individual in sports history, showed a team could win with any pieces, as long as those pieces are used properly.</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/3/20/5517048/ranking-greatest-coaches-in-supersonics-history-part-iv-wilkensMax Churaisin2014-03-12T09:00:08-07:002014-03-12T09:00:08-07:00Remember When the Sonics Considered Phil Jackson?
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/tA7fx1DcJ7e2kJ5YYForPW7AkRU=/0x0:600x400/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/29768593/gyi0062209362.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jeff Gross</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Back in 1998, the Seattle SuperSonics fired George Karl. Looking to find a replacement, the team considered trying to bring over the man who would be the greatest coach in NBA history.
</p>
<p>Edited by Tiffany Villigan</p> <p class="MsoNormal">With the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.postingandtoasting.com/">New York Knicks</a> trying to lure <span>Phil Jackson</span> to the Big Apple, it’s yet another attempt by an organization looking to strike gold by bringing the storied coach to their city. It’s understandable, as Jackson has developed a messiah-like reputation for bringing teams to the NBA equivalent of the Holy Land. His link to a team draws just as much attention as any major free agent.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jackson’s reemergence in the news had me thinking about a time when his name was connected to the SuperSonics. No, I’m not talking about last year when it was reported that Jackson would have joined the Sonics if the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.sactownroyalty.com/">Sacramento Kings</a> had come to Seattle. Rather, I’m thinking of a time about a decade and a half earlier.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It was the summer of 1998, and for the second year in a row, the Sonics had been bounced in the second round of the playoffs. This was after the team had finished the season 61-21, and had won the first game of the best-of-seven series against the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/">Lakers</a>. Despite having won at least 60 games in three of the last five seasons, only once did Karl lead his team past the second round of the playoffs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Karl’s relationship with Seattle management was already a tense one. Having been paid $3.2 million a year, he had been vocal about his desire for a new contract with higher pay, but it never came. Whether it was the inability to keep his mouth shut or, as President Wally Walker claimed, the fact that he wasn’t the right fit for the team, another playoff disappointment gave the organization an excuse to dismiss the highly successful, at least in the regular season, coach.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Replacing a coach who had compiled a 384-150 record in his six-and-a-half seasons with the team was no easy task. Whoever replaced Karl would have shoes to fill that were so large that only men with feet as big as Vin Baker's might be able to fit in them. The four candidates were Sonics assistant Bob Weiss, former <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.poundingtherock.com/">Spurs</a> coach Bob Hill, former <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.brightsideofthesun.com/">Suns</a> coach <span>Paul Westphal</span>, and a member of Seattle’s only championship team, Paul Silas.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But was there a chance that the Zen Master could have been hired?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While Karl was having his tiff with Seattle management, Jackson was having his own problems east in Chicago. He was serving the remainder of his second consecutive one-year contract, and due to a personal battle with general manager Jerry Krause, the likelihood of him returning to the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.blogabull.com/">Bulls</a> was very low.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">After Karl’s dismissal, Jackson’s agent, Todd Musburger, hinted that his client would be open to coming to Seattle. A man of Jackson’s caliber would have been a great fit for a successful, veteran team like the Sonics. In the words of Musburger, "One of his great abilities is to handle supremely talented athletes and get them to work together for a common goal."</p>
<p>Seattle seemed to reciprocate the feeling. Even after Weiss, Hill, Westphal, and Silas interviewed with the team, it was reported that Walker would put off hiring a coach until after the <a style="background-color: #ffffff;" class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-finals">NBA Finals</a> were over. Walker wanted to talk to Jackson, whose Bulls were battling the <a style="background-color: #ffffff;" class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.slcdunk.com/">Utah Jazz</a> for their sixth championship, about his interest in possibly coaching the team.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Alas, that never happened.</p>
<p>Shortly after the NBA Finals, the Sonics made the decision to hire Westphal without talking to Jackson. According to Walker, "We interviewed four outstanding candidates for the job and the speculation that we were waiting to talk to a fifth candidate was accurate, but the further we went into the process the more evident it became that Paul was the right man for this job."</p>
<p>In Westphal’s first year as head coach, the team would miss the playoffs for the first time in nearly a decade. His time in Seattle would be a tumultuous and short one, marked by decline and disappointment. Barely over two seasons in, he would be given the axe.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Jackson would take the 1998-99 season off before returning with the Lakers. Needless to say, it didn’t take long for Jackson to help Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant, and friends win a championship. In his first season in Los Angeles, Jackson won 67 games, marking the first of three consecutive titles there.</p>
<p>Was Jackson ever a serious candidate to become the head coach of the Seattle SuperSonics? It’s hard to say because talks never happened. If he did become coach, there’s no guarantee Seattle would have won any championships either, as he would have inherited an aging team.</p>
<p>Still, one would have to think that he would have given the Sonics at least another chance at a potential championship run. While Westphal clashed with veteran players, especially star Gary Payton, Jackson would have earned the respect and authority that one can only get from winning six championships. He also had the reputation of being able to master personalities, meshing together the likes of a hypercompetitive Michael Jordan with the unpredictable Dennis Rodman.</p>
<p>The Sonics team he would have taken over would have also been somewhat similar to what he had when he went to Los Angeles. At hand was a team of talented players who had much regular season success, only to falter when the playoffs came. Yet, in his first season, Jackson helped the Lakers overcome their postseason struggles to become the top team in the league. Could he have done with Payton, Baker, and Schrempf what he did with O’Neal and Bryant?</p>
<p>Like many stories in the sports, Jackson coming to Seattle was probably more talk than anything else. Still, imagining Jackson leading the Sonics is envisioning another opportunity that Seattle might have had to bring a title to the Emerald City.</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/3/12/5489332/could-phil-jackson-have-been-the-coach-of-the-sonicsMax Churaisin2014-03-10T09:00:02-07:002014-03-10T09:00:02-07:00League Changes and an Alternative Team History
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/x3vxTW0SVAntoYhSvYGpelqpO-s=/0x76:4000x2743/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/29527421/20130215_jla_sd2_012.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Bob Donnan-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There has been discussion recently about how to change the NBA, such as raising the age limit or altering the playoffs. If some of these changes had been in place the last 50 years, how would basketball in Seattle have been different?
</p>
<p>Edited by Tiffany Villigan</p> <p>The NBA, much like just about anything in life, is an organic body. It doesn’t remain constant throughout time, but rather evolves and changes. With the ascension of Adam Silver to the throne of NBA Commissioner, one can expect the league to evolve even further.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Silver has said that he’s a man who’s open to change, though unfortunately none of the possible changes seem to involve a basketball team in Seattle. Rather, throughout the past month, there have been talks ranging from what can be done to improve the draft to how to make the playoffs more exciting.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Whether or not any of these ideas are carried out is still left to be seen. Still, it’s fun to think, talk, discuss, and debate about. What I find fascinating to ponder is how changes in league-wide regulations could possibly have impacted the history of a single NBA team. For instance, what would a different playoff format have meant for the championship hopes for the teams of Sonics’ past?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m not trying to justify our team’s history or make the franchise look any better or worse than it was. Rather, what I hope to do is examine the hypothetical. If some of the changes that Silver or others have proposed had been permanently put in place the last five decades, how and to what extent could it have changed Seattle SuperSonics history as we know it?</p>
<p><b>The <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-draft">NBA Draft</a><br></b>Disparity in the league between the best and worst teams is bad. For one, it disrupts the competitive balance, which is detrimental to the fan experience. Perhaps even more troubling, it leads to the accusation that teams are trying to tank and be as bad as possible in order to increase their chances of getting the first overall pick.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Personally, and Commissioner Silver has made a similar statement, it’s important to distinguish the difference between purposely losing and cleverly rebuilding. In my mind, telling the coach to sit good players or trying to acquire low-level talents is tanking. Trying to acquire expiring contracts or young assets is not.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regardless, the degree to which teams appear as if they are trying to be bad has caused the issue of draft reform to arise. While sentiments vary, such as Mavericks’ owner Mark Cuban expressing his feelings that the three worst teams shouldn’t have a shot at a top-three pick, a method coming to the forefront of discussion is a draft wheel. With this method, the picks every team would have would be predetermined according to a wheel that would ensure each team would have a top-six pick once every five years.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So how would this have impacted team history? To be honest, it’s hard to say. The only thing for sure is that the Sonics would have had at least one first overall pick in their team history, something they never had. However, there’s no way of knowing who would have what pick in what year, and what picks they would have made.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">What the draft wheel does do is theoretically take luck out of the equation. The bounce of a ping-pong ball wouldn’t be able to determine whether a team had the first overall pick or the fourteenth. This is where the Sonics become relevant because a little luck took the franchise a long way.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The greatest player in Seattle SuperSonics history is arguably (but not really) Gary Payton, taken with the second overall pick in the 1990 NBA Draft. What people tend to forget is that at the time, Seattle was coming off a season in which they finished 41-41. In fact, one more win would have put them in the playoffs, and would have given them either the 12<sup>th</sup>, 13<sup>th</sup>, or 14<sup>th</sup> overall pick.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The way the lottery worked back then was that each of the eleven non-playoff teams had a chance at a top-three pick based on their regular season performance. The worst team had 11 chances, the second worst team had 10, and so on, with the best of the non-playoff teams having just one chance. As a result, Seattle had only two chances, and thus a three percent chance of getting to pick first.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">They didn’t end up getting the first pick, but the second pick, still a longshot, in the long run ended up better. Taking Gary Payton, the Sonics found the second half of their one-two punch alongside Shawn Kemp, which would bring many victories to the city of Seattle. The Sonics emerged as a dominant force in the '90s because of a little luck, and this would not have been made possible with the draft wheel.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Raising the Age Limit<br></b>Commissioner Silver has been a proponent of raising the NBA age limit to 20. When talking about requirements to join the NBA, the first player a Sonics fan might think of is Spencer Haywood; however, Haywood was 21 years old when he played his first game with the squad, so he wouldn’t apply. Two key figures in Sonics history came to the league without playing any NCAA ball, though: Shawn Kemp and <span>Rashard Lewis</span>.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is it possible to imagine Seattle SuperSonics history without Kemp? Is it possible to envision the early and mid-'90s without him being fed lobs from Payton? I certainly can’t imagine it. Without Kemp, the Sonics still would have probably been a good team with Payton, Schrempf, and the rest, but a trip to the 1996 <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-finals">NBA Finals</a> would never have occurred without the Reign Man’s effort.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for Lewis, as a second round pick from Elsik High School in Texas, Seattle was able to grab him in one of NBA history’s more notable second round steals. Considering Lewis participated in only two playoff squads during his time in the Emerald City, his erasure from Sonics history would not have had the gravity as that of Shawn Kemp. Still, between his All-Star appearance, his name atop the three-point leaderboard, and his contributions to the Cinderella 2004-05 team, he left behind a big mark.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While allowing teenagers into the NBA has proven to be beneficial for the Sonics, their record hasn't been unblemished. For an example, one needs to look no further than ten years ago when <span>Robert Swift</span> was drafted from Bakersfield High with the 12<sup>th</sup> overall pick. Aside from half a season, Swift had next to no impact with the Sonics. One can only wonder who else the Sonics could have taken with the 12<sup>th</sup> pick, but almost anyone would have been an improvement.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking at the Swift case justifies the reason why Silver wants to up the age limit. It’s about maturity and growth. Considering Swift hardly played at all his rookie season, he could have used a couple of seasons of college ball to improve his game.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">While raising the age limit has both its advocates and detractors, in the survey of Sonics' history, allowing teenagers into the league has proven beneficial to the franchise. While there are instances like Swift that produced underwhelming results, the gains have outweighed the losses as Kemp and Lewis came to Seattle without any college ball and would both eventually make a great impact.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Playoffs<br></b>A common complaint about the NBA postseason is that it is too long and predictable. That happens when there’s a seven-game series and half the teams make the postseason. That’s why, to increase excitement, Silver recently brought up the idea of single-elimination. One only needs to take a look at the NFL to see how a single-elimination style postseason makes the champion much harder to predict. How would a single-elimination tournament have affected how Sonics teams finished in past seasons?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For one, the sole championship in franchise history doesn’t happen. They lost Game One of the 1979 NBA Finals to the Washington Bullets before winning the next four. Then again, Washington lost the first game of the Eastern Conference Finals to the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.poundingtherock.com/">San Antonio Spurs</a>, so they themselves would not have even made the Finals.</p>
<p>Similarly, the 1986-87 Seattle SuperSonics’ miraculous run to the Western Conference Finals would never have occurred. They were walloped in the very first game against the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.mavsmoneyball.com/" style="background-color: #ffffff;">Dallas Mavericks</a> in the first round.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, where the biggest change in team history would have occurred would have been in the '90s. In each of the five seasons between 1993-94 and 1997-98, the Sonics were legitimate contenders. The only team that would have been worse off would be the 1996-97 squad, though the difference would have only been one round. The 1996 Finals team would have stayed the same, but the three other teams won the first game of the series that they ended up losing. It’s not out of mind to think that at least one of them could have made a trip to the NBA Finals.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Four-Point Line<br></b>Reports came out that NBA executives had discussed the idea of a four-point line; however, the NBA has denied this. If there had been a four-point line throughout history, I think it’d be fair to say Seattle would have had an advantage. Let’s take a look at some notable Sonics greats.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Fred Brown: Brown wasn’t called "Downtown" because he liked to hang around the business district. It was because he could shoot. Unfortunately for him, there wasn’t even a three-pointer until over halfway through his career. Still, in the very first season there were three-pointers, Brown led the league at 44.3%. His old coach, Lenny Wilkens, claimed that if there had been a three-point line prior, Brown would have averaged 30 points a game. Just imagine what he could have done with a four-point line.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dale Ellis: In his four full seasons in green and gold, Ellis shot 41.2% from beyond the arc. He also ranked top ten in most made in each of those years. In his second stint with the team beginning in 1997-98, he led the league in percentage at 46.4%.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ray Allen: 269 threes in the 2005-06 season. 2,931 threes for his career. Need I say more?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Sonics have been blessed with three players who really put the shooting in "shooting guard." While I’m not sure how I would feel about a four-point line, it would have elevated the careers of three already terrific players.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><br>Conclusion<br></b>All of what I've said isn't to be taken too seriously. I'm not looking to make a point of whether certain changes should in fact be enacted, but take a look at what their implications may have been for the past. What-ifs are too difficult to assess and too many additional factors play a role in what could have happened beyond what I have discussed. Still, it goes to show how simple changes in the way the NBA runs could have greatly changed the landscape of a team’s history.</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/3/10/5472940/contemporary-league-topics-affected-sonics-historyMax Churaisin2014-03-05T09:00:02-08:002014-03-05T09:00:02-08:00The "Difference-Makers" of Sonics Coaching History
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/QmanKDBYWlK4JctRQqh61Jyryig=/0x6:4000x2673/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/29176017/20130709_mjr_su5_009.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A close look at all the men who have roamed the sidelines in Seattle. Part III examines three coaches who, while never leading any Sonics team to the NBA Finals, made winners out of losing situations.
</p>
<p>Edited by Tiffany Villigan</p> <p>Through Sonics' history, there has only been a handful of coaches that most people would consider a success. These were the ones who could, or should have been able to, walk away from the position knowing they achieved something: they left the team better off than when it started. Fans were left to wonder who would fill their shoes, and any reasonable general manager would have signed them if they could.</p>
<p>That's not to say these coaches were perfect, though. Anyone who sticks with a team for an extended period of time will fail to leave it unblemished. Even the G.O.A.T. of coaches, <span>Phil Jackson</span>, has an <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba-finals">NBA Finals</a> surprise exit on his resume. Among the demerits of the coaches who have earned the stamp of approval in team history are first-round disappointments, losing records, and strained player relationships. However, what makes them beloved, or at least respected, in the end was their ability to elevate a team in a way maybe thought not possible.</p>
<p>The two greatest coaches in team history are undeniable. Thus, I will focus on them in another article. For now, I want to pay respects to three coaches who, while their accomplishments pale in magnitude to the top two, were nevertheless difference-makers.</p>
<p><b>5. Bill Russell, 1973-1977 (162-166, .494)</b></p>
<p>When Seattle hired Russell, it was to make the Sonics a winner. Up to that point, the team had just one winning season and zero playoff appearances since their induction to the league seven years prior. Worse, they were coming off their most disappointing season yet. For the first time, they hadn't improved upon their previous season's record, and at 26-56, put up their worst year since expansion. The SuperSonics looked anything but super and were desperate for help.</p>
<p>To their rescue came the greatest winner in NBA history. With eleven championships as a player, his playing talents were unquestioned. With the last two of those championships coming as a player-coach, his ability to lead was further reinforced. Seattle was looking for someone who could give them hope and provide a winning culture to the team. His arrival rebuilt confidence in Seattle that someday the Sonics would be a contender.</p>
<p>Dubbed "Seattle's New Dictator," Russell commanded respect. He demanded excellence. Tough, strict, and a disciplinarian, Russell brought a no-nonsense approach to Seattle and let the city know who was in charge. He tried to instill, or force, his values of hustle, teamwork, and tight defense. Though faith was quick to come, progress at first looked pretty slow.</p>
<p>Early on in Russell's first season, the team played dismally. Following a six-game losing streak, the Sonics fell to 9-21. If they had kept on winning at that rate, they would have actually won just 25 games, a drop-off from a year before. However, the team eventually bought into what Russell was selling, finishing the season a respectable 27-25. Most impressive was the fact that they started becoming the team Russell was known for. After giving up an average of 112.2 points through the first 30 games, the team shaved over four points off that number and surrendered 108.0 points the rest of the way.</p>
<p>Building off their progress, the 1974-75 Seattle SuperSonics took another step forward, finishing the season 43-39. Though largely inconsistent, with three streaks each of winning and losing four consecutive games, the squad truly looked to be feeding off the culture of Russell. For one, they improved on the defensive end, ranking in the top half of the league in Defensive Rating. The team also looked as if it had begun to develop a rhythm, ending the season on a seven-game winning streak and making it through the first round before losing in six to the eventual champions, the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.goldenstateofmind.com/">Golden State Warriors</a>. Every coach on this list moving forward will have a landmark season that legitimizes their efforts in the course of team history, and for Russell, this was his.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the winning culture Russell brought to Seattle was just that. Under the Celtic legend, the Sonics "won" but they did not "contend." The next season was another 43-win season and another Semifinal exit, and the 1976-77 season brought a digression out of the playoffs, as the team finished a mere 40-42.</p>
<p>Though Russell had signed a five-year contract with the team, he never made it to his final season. Having been tabbed in a dual role as head coach and general manager, Russell was deemed too expensive by owner Sam Schulman, and the two sides split.</p>
<p>While Russell's techniques had shown to be effective in bringing the franchise back from the dead, one can only wonder how long he would have been an ideal coach. In a sense, Russell was the anti-Pete Carroll. Rather than bringing optimism and a sunny demeanor, he had a harsh tough-love attitude that could break down a player. While one had to respect Bill Russell for all he accomplished, playing for him may not have been the most enjoyable experience.</p>
<p>Spencer Haywood, the star of most of Russell's Seattle teams, saw a once great relationship strained. In <i>King of the Court: Bill Russell and the Basketball Revolution</i>, author Aram Goudsouzian wrote that Haywood "resented how Russell embarrassed players. He wanted credit for sacrificing statistics or overcoming injuries. He started complaining during practice." Haywood eventually grew extremely critical of Russell and demanded a trade.</p>
<p>Slick Watts, who was with Russell all four years, wrote in his book <i>Tales from the Seattle SuperSonics</i>, "Russell was pushed out I think probably because he lost some of the guys because of how he approached things. People get tired of being annihilated or intimidated...It got to a point where many people couldn't deal with him."</p>
<p>Russell could be analogous of that teacher all of us had in high school: the one who was mean and strict and whom we hated, but at the end of the day, got results out of us. Due to his demeanor and the words of his players, it's hard to say Russell was an excellent coach. Players were scared of him and didn't want to play for him. When it comes to player relations, Russell probably gets a failing grade. However, what we're looking at is results. After inheriting a team that was in deep mud, Russell pulled it out, cleaned it up, and made team history by not making just one, but two playoff appearances. In a sense, he also provided the bridge to the golden Wilkens era. As a result, Russell maintains good standing on the list of Sonic coaches.</p>
<p><b>4. <span>Nate McMillan</span>, 2000-2005 (212-183, .537</b><b>)</b></p>
<p>Personally, I've always found McMillan to be overrated as a coach. This isn't to say that he's a bad coach, but I've never looked at him as the great coach that I have heard so many NBA "experts" proclaim him as throughout the years. Part of that may have to do with the fact that in twelve seasons as the head man, his team has only made it out of the second round once. The other part has to do with him being a "defense-minded" coach, yet he never coached a team that had a Defensive Rating in the top ten, and only three times were his teams even in the top half of the league.</p>
<p>Examining his time in Seattle, though, it's clear that McMillan did the best with the cards he was dealt. The time between 2002-04 was pretty forgettable, and even led to rumors of him being fired. After finishing the season at 40-42 in 2002-03 under McMillan, the Sonics had a losing record for the first time since 1987. However, one can find the positive in that the squad was 18-12 after trading Gary Payton. The next season, at just 37-45, though, was troubling.</p>
<p>Still, the big picture shows that the positives outweigh the negatives. On three different occasions, the Sonics performed better than one would expect under McMillan. First was when he took over for <span>Paul Westphal</span> early on in the 2000-01 season. Being given a team marked by inner turmoil and unhappy veterans, McMillan turned the team around. At 6-9 at the time of Westphal's dismissal, McMillan had the team competing for a playoff spot. Under his ship, the team was 38-29, and ended the season 13-5.</p>
<p>The following season may have been even more impressive. In his first full season as head coach, he led a rather young team, one that saw three rookies get consistent playing time. Gone were key contributors like <span>Patrick Ewing</span> and <span>Ruben Patterson</span>, and in came the likes of <span>Vladimir Radmanovic</span> and Peja Drobnjak. Expectations were low, and many expected the team to be out of the playoffs. Yet the team clinched over a week before the end of the regular season and were the only Western Conference team to take their opponent the distance in the first round.</p>
<p>Following the decline in 2003 and 2004, the team didn't give any reason to believe they would be better off in 2005. They lost <span>Brent Barry</span>, their veteran sharpshooter and team leader, and swapped big man <span>Calvin Booth</span> for troubled power forward Danny Fortson. Expectations were so low that Marc Stein of ESPN put the SuperSonics 29th in the league in his preseason power rankings. Considering the 2004-05 season was also the inaugural year of the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="http://www.sbnation.com/nba/teams/charlotte-bobcats">Charlotte Bobcats</a>, whom he ranked #30, second-to-last was basically last.</p>
<p>The first game saw a 30-point whopping at the hand of the franchise that has historically been associated with the definition of losers: the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.clipsnation.com/">Los Angeles Clippers</a>. That game could have reaffirmed Seattle's inferiority and set the tone for the rest of the season; however, something remarkable happened. Rather than falter, the team used that loss to propel themselves from the abyss of the NBA realm.</p>
<p>A nine-game winning streak followed that loss. Seattle started the season at 17-3, playing like perhaps the best team in the NBA. As the season wore on, the Sonics floated back down to earth, but still managed a 52-30 record and a Northwest Division Crown, thereby exceeding the expectations most pundits had placed on them. A last-minute missed shot by Allen prevented the Sonics from taking the eventual champion <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.poundingtherock.com/">San Antonio Spurs</a> to the seventh game in the Semi-Finals and put the cap on the Cinderella season.</p>
<p>For his work, McMillan came in third in Coaching of the Year voting for turning a roster of seemingly random bodies into a formidable team. Young players grew up and forgotten players reemerged. He orchestrated a beautiful symphony of offensive efficiency into a team that would rank second in the league in Offensive Rating.</p>
<p>Perhaps more indicative of the impact McMillan had on the Sonics was the 2005-07 season. After McMillan went down south to join Portland, a rather identical team led by the experienced Bob Weiss could not replicate the same success. A coach needs to ensure that the product exceeds the sum of the parts, and for the majority of his time in Seattle, Mr. Sonic did that.</p>
<p><b>3. <span>Bernie Bickerstaff</span>, 1985-1990 (202-208, .493)</b></p>
<p>Is it weird that the person I'm ranking as the third-best coach in team history doesn't even have a winning record? If so, allow me the time to explain.</p>
<p>On the surface, Bickerstaff comes off as a very average coach. I mean very, very average. His winning percentage is just about at .500. He took over a team that was 31-51, and in his first year, they were still 31-51. In his last season as the team's coach, Seattle finished 41-41. After he stepped down, the team finished with an identical record of 41-41. Apparently, what this glance-over analysis suggests is that fire him or hire him, the team won't be impacted.</p>
<p>If one were to conclude that, they would be wrong. Bickerstaff did make quite a positive impact while coaching the SuperSonics.</p>
<p>Bickerstaff took hold of a team that was in a steep decline. Gone were the days of contending for a championship, and instead, here was a franchise that had seen their win total decrease in four of the last five seasons. After finishing the 1984-85 season at 31-51, perhaps the biggest name in team history at that point, Lenny Wilkens, was removed from his post as head coach. Bickerstaff was left to try to restore a franchise that even the eighth-winningest coach in NBA history up to that point couldn't deal with.</p>
<p>His first season saw no improvement. Or did it? While the SuperSonics' record remained unchanged under Bickerstaff, the team definitely progressed. Under Wilkens, the 1984-85 Sonics had a point differential of -5.5. With Bickerstaff, even if it didn't result in more wins, that margin was trimmed down to a mere -0.1. As well, improvements were made on both ends of the court. In terms of Offensive Rating, the team rose from 22nd (out of 23) to 15th, and in terms of Defensive Rating, they went from 13th to 10th.</p>
<p>The improved play of the Sonics did not go unnoticed in Bickerstaff's first season. The great Pat Riley, who was coaching the L.A. <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/">Lakers</a> then, said after a game, "They have turned into one heck of a tough team. Bernie's done a great job."</p>
<p>So even if the record didn't look better, a culture and identity had been instilled by Bickerstaff that could make one believe that the Sonics were on their way up. However, in a league judged simply by wins and losses, this wasn't enough. During the offseason, great changes were made; among them, the trade of seven-time All-Star Jack Sikma.</p>
<p>When the 1986-87 seasons started, only three players remained on the roster from the previous season. Because of that, the legendary coach Red Auerbach forecasted a gloomy season in Seattle. Not only did he project the Sonics to finish last in the Pacific, he even went as far as to say they were hardly better than a Continental Basketball Association team. Not many coaches could succeed with a team that draws a comment like that. But Bernie Bickerstaff could.</p>
<p>Though 39-43, the record the team finished with, was nothing to brag about, it clearly exceeded the expectations put down by the coaching legend. In that sense, the SuperSonics, and Bickerstaff, had already "won." Most importantly though, 39 wins was good enough to make the playoffs, and it was in the playoffs that year that moral victories were pushed aside for actual victories. It was the 1987 playoffs that would cement Bickerstaff's name in Seattle history.</p>
<p>The Sonics were heavy underdogs just by virtue of being the seventh seed. However, adding to that was the fact that their opponent was the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.mavsmoneyball.com/">Dallas Mavericks</a>, who finished at 55-27. During the regular season, the two teams had met five times, with Dallas sweeping the series, winning by an average of 18.6 points per game. The Sonics looked like they had no chance of winning, and their hopes of winning looked even bleaker after a 129-151 wallop in Game 1.</p>
<p>After the thrashing, Bickerstaff had a chance to show his coaching prowess. He put in a crucial defensive switch that turned the series around. Rather than have power forward Tom Chambers try to chase long-distance shooter and big man Sam Perkins around the perimeter, he put the quicker small forward Xavier McDaniel on him instead, and matched Chambers up with Mark Aguirre. The move worked wonders and the Sonics would win the next three games, including a 26 point win to clinch the series.</p>
<p>The Sonics made history by becoming the first #7 seed to make it past the first round. But that wasn't enough. Up next was the <a class="sbn-auto-link" href="https://www.thedreamshake.com/">Houston Rockets</a>, the defending Western Conference champions. One could say that Houston was the team of the future, the heir to the Lakers' throne out west. Bickerstaff wasn't buying it. The team won in six games and made it to the NBA's final four. Unceremoniously, the season ended with a sweep at the hands of the Lakers. Still, the Sonics made a name for themselves and amazed a nation. Bickerstaff became the sort of savior Seattle was looking for.</p>
<p>While Seattle couldn't replicate the tale of the 1987 Sonics, they did continue to improve. 1988 saw a four win increase to 44-38 but a first round exit. In the 1988-89 season, despite having lost Tom Chambers to free agency, Bickerstaff actually kept the team together and they improved. Three more wins put them at 47-35, and they made it a step further in the playoffs, losing in the Semifinals.</p>
<p>The 1989-90 season saw the team fall to 41-41 and miss the playoffs, but considering the 40 combined missed games between Dale Ellis and McDaniel, it's a credit to Bickerstaff that he managed to keep the team afloat and competitive.</p>
<p>In his five seasons with the Seattle SuperSonics, Bickerstaff stopped a slide that the franchise was going through. Every single team that Bickerstaff coached played at least how one would expect them to play, or in the case of the 1986-87 team, significantly better. Along with Lenny Wilkens and <span>George Karl</span>, Bickerstaff is the only other coach to take the Sonics to the NBA Finals. I think most of us would agree that when he stepped down as coach, no one had a sour taste in their mouth.</p>
<p><b>Conclusion</b></p>
<p>Russell, McMillan, and Bickerstaff are not the perfect coaches. Just taking a look at their records, they don't stand out in any way, shape, or form. At times, one might have even wondered if they were the right coaches for the team. Yet, Seattle was lucky to have them.</p>
<p>When each of these three men took the mantle of Head Coach of the Seattle SuperSonics, they were put into a challenging situation. They were assigned to bring back the winning ways of the team. While they couldn't bring the city to the Promise Land, they took the team to a level that they hadn't experienced in recent history. Given what they had, they made the SuperSonics winners again.</p>
https://www.sonicsrising.com/2014/3/5/5444756/ranking-the-greatest-coaches-in-supersonics-history-part-iii-difference-makersMax Churaisin