Don Nelson now NBA's winningest coach

Story @ Yahoo! NBA

Nelson surpassed Lenny Wilkens on the career list with win No. 1,333 in the Golden State Warriors’ 116-107 win over the Minnesota Timberwolves on Wednesday night.

“It’s just such a neat feeling,” Nelson said, his hair soaked with a fizzy concoction of soft drinks and water after a wild celebration in the Warriors locker room. “This is probably why we end up coaching, for moments like this.”

Nelson’s career started in 1976 when he took over the Milwaukee Bucks 19 games into the season. He has also coached in Dallas, New York and with Golden State twice during his colorful career, but has never made it to the NBA finals as a coach.

Congrats to Nellie, as the article says there'll always be debate about his legacy as a coach and his coaching style but it's a tribute to his longevity if nothing else. It's worth noting that he has the third most 50 win seasons behind Phil Jackson and Pat Riley, though I think that exemplifies the knock on Nellieball; it's great to watch if you appreciate up-tempo basketball, it's certainly unique and it's definitely capable of producing good results during the regular season if the talent is there, but it's not a system built for success in the Playoffs.

I'd give him the nod for the Hall of Fame though. Even without a championship or Finals appearance, his coaching career has been long enough, noteworthy enough and successful enough to merit enshrinement.

Quite possibly the drunkest too. Sounds like the guys like him though, the ones who he plays anyway.

It's worth noting that he has the third most 50 win seasons behind Phil Jackson and Pat Riley, though I think that exemplifies the knock on Nellieball; it's great to watch if you appreciate up-tempo basketball, it's certainly unique and it's definitely capable of producing good results during the regular season if the talent is there, but it's not a system built for success in the Playoffs.

That's why I can't stand these gimmick coaches like Nellie and D'Anfoni. Where does "sissy-ball" get you in the playoffs when the defenses tighten up and the game becomes more half-court? Nellie is the same genius who wanted to play Patrick Ewing at forward and center the offense around Anthony Mason. You saw how long that lasted.

though I think that exemplifies the knock on Nellieball; it's great to watch if you appreciate up-tempo basketball, it's certainly unique and it's definitely capable of producing good results during the regular season if the talent is there, but it's not a system built for success in the Playoffs.

I have no clue how you can make this claim. The Lakers have won 9 titles since 1979 all ranked in the top half of the league in pace (with a few top five finishes including last years team), the 1995 Rockets and 2006 Heat also won titles with top half paces. Phil Jackson has taken four teams to the Finals and won two titles using teams with top six paces. Riley has taken two Finals teams and won a title with a top six pace. Nelson has only coached five contenders with top six paces.

Or even tie it to his 50-win seasons since half of them came when the Bucks were the leagues dominant defense.

Let's look at Nelson's "contenders" (top-six SRS's):

Year-Team	Pythag	Pace Rank	Off Rank	Def Rank	SRS Rank	Playoff Defeat
1979-80 Bucks	51-31	14th of 22	5th	8th	5th	4-3 to Sonics (16th, 8th/3rd, 3rd, lost in West Finals)
1980-81 Bucks	59-23	4th of 23	2nd	3rd	2nd	4-3 to Sixers (5th, 8th/2nd, 1st, lost in East Finals)
1981-82 Bucks	55-27	14th	9th	1st	3rd	4-2 to Sixers (11th, 5th/7th, 2nd, lost in NBA Finals)
1982-83 Bucks	53-29	19th	10th	6th	5th	4-1 to Sixers (15th, 5th/5th, 1st, NBA Champions)
1983-84 Bucks	52-30	22nd	12th	2nd	2nd	4-1 to Celtics (15th, 6th/3rd, 1st, NBA Champions)
1984-85 Bucks	58-24	19th	6th	2nd	1st	4-0 to Sixers (16th, 4th/10th, 4th, lost in East Finals)
1985-86 Bucks	62-20	13th	4th	2nd	2nd	4-0 to Celtics (16th, 3rd/1st, 1st, NBA Champions)
1986-87 Bucks	51-31	15th	7th	4th	5th	4-3 to Celtics (19th, 3rd/9th, 3rd, lost in NBA Finals)
1991-92 Warriors	50-32	1st	3rd	20th	6th	3-1 to Sonics (18th, 9th/15th, 11th, lost in Second Round)
2000-01 Mavericks	53-29	4th	4th	13th	4th	4-1 to Spurs (23rd, 6th/1st, 1st, lost in West Finals)
2001-02 Mavericks	53-29	4th	1st	25th	4th	4-1 to Kings (1st, 3rd/6th, 1st, lost in West Finals)
2002-03 Mavericks	62-20	7th	1st	9th	1st	4-2 to Spurs (20th, 7th/3rd, 3rd, NBA Champions)
2003-04 Mavericks	53-29	2nd	1st	26th	6th	4-1 to Kings (4th, 2nd/21st, 3rd, lost in Second Round)

Times lost to a faster paced team: 5/13
Times lost to a better offense: 6/13
Times lost to a better defense: 9/13
Times lost to a better team: 10/13
Times lost to eventual NBA Champion: 4/13
Times lost to a NBA Finalist: 6/13

Times lost to a faster team or a team within three ranks in pace: 9/13

Let's look at the other four times.

2003 Mavericks, Dirk gets hurt in the West Finals against Spurs and the team falls apart.
2001 Mavericks, they get beat by the best team in the league during the regular season.
1992 Warriors, lost last two games of the series 129-128 and 119-116.
1987 Bucks, four spots out, still below average pace. Nowhere near as good as Celtics, still take them to seven games.

And there's more to Nellieball than just an up-tempo team, as the Bucks show. Other keys are often using a point-forward, and using a vast array of lineups to create mismatches and force teams to adjust. As his Warriors (1st in pace) did to the Mavericks (28th in pace) in 2007.

Where does "sissy-ball" get you in the playoffs when the defenses tighten up and the game becomes more half-court?

Five Conference Finals?

I have no clue how you can make this claim.

Well, mostly Nellie's grand total of zero championships and Finals appearances, though granted it wasn't much of a critique and did ignore the success he has had. Like I said, I think he should be considered a successful coach regardless and thus should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

You said an up-tempo style cannot win in the playoffs.

Don Nelson just has never won a title, and considering Milwaukee, his longest most-successful stint, I don't know if I'd even say "up-tempo" is a key component of Nellieball. The other individual aspects of Nellieball have all won titles as well.

Although I wasn't arguing necessarily against your exact point re: Nelson but the stupid myth that you cannot win a title with a higher than average pace while pointing to Nelson's Mavs (or D'Antoni's Suns). It's like pointing to Fratello's Cavaliers and saying you can't win a title by slowing the pace to a crawl. Riley never won any titles by slowing the pace, the best he got was the hate crime known as the 1994 Finals. He won all his titles pushing his team into the top half of the league in pace.

It's one of those silly myths that never go away despite all evidence to the contrary, or are just basically non-sequiturs like "Defense Wins Championships."

Great teams win titles, as much as people want to attribute the visual style of a team and decide a team can't win playing a certain way, it simply is not true. Teams win pushing on every possession (Lakers), teams win by slowing the pace to a crawl and knocking people around (Pistons), teams win by matching whatever you want to play them with (Spurs). Teams win by pouring in the offense (Bulls), teams win by shutting their opponents down (Bulls) or doing both (Bulls). Teams win by going to superstars (Lakers) and teams win by throwing gobs of depth at you (Pistons).

I don't think not winning a title should ever take anything away, especially Nelson's work with the Bucks. It's easy to forget we went almost a decade and a half before any team outside of six franchises managed to win a title. Those 1980s Bucks are basically as good of run as you can have without winning a title or making the Finals, especially for a small market team. Hard to win titles when you keep running into defending teams and you're trying to win with Sidney Moncrief as your best player instead of a Magic Johnson, Moses Malone or Larry Bird.

Fair enough, I did oversimplify. I suppose the point I really wanted to make wasn't so much that Nellie's style couldn't ever win a championship but that to date he hasn't, however that shouldn't keep him out of the Hall.

Say this for Nelson, while he's one of the worst coaches at developing talent and properly organizing it (I think he gets bored and that's why Dallas got better after Avery Johnson came in and set in stone a rotation, it's why the Warriors peaked when he had a team he could interchange while not being able to handle a team stocked with talent a problem he also ran into in Dallas as they added pieces) he's also incredible at finding places for guys. Look at who Golden State has been playing, Tolliver, Morrow, Reggie Williams, Chris Hunter, Kelenna Azubuike, all undrafted nobodies who he's found roles for where they can put up good numbers and contribute. In the past guys like Matt Barnes he recreated their entire games, convinced Stephen Jackson he could run a team, etc.

I can't help but wonder if Nelson is like a Doug Collins or Larry Brown (Rick Carlisle?), a guy you want to bring in for a short period to push and build a team, and then move onto someone else who can put things properly. After two or three years, you really don't want any of these guys to still be at the helm as their insanity holds the team back.

Nelson in the 80s with the Bucks was a different coach when I look at his rotations, he was far more restrained. Some of the concepts were there, as were some of the flaws. Nelson's biggest failing is, as Jeffx somewhat noted, his desire to find some key change that will put a team over. Sometimes it works, when he plucked an aging Walt Williams out of nowhere to pull the Kings defense apart and beat them. Other times, it implodes when he's playing a Devean George or Vladimir Radmanovic.

If I ran a team that owned a D-League team, I'd actually want him to be the coach. Just from his mad experiments you'd learn more about your players.

Nelson has been around long enough I give him a pass, but its not like many coaches make sense. Guys like Mike Dunleavy and P.J. Carlesimo keep getting gigs, while Eric Musselman, whose 2003-04 is one of the greatest coaching feats in NBA history, is stuck doing color commentary drunk on D-League games. (Not that I'm entirely complaining, who doesn't love five minute long stories about getting tacos?)

Damn... benji. That's whole lotta informations on Nelson I never knew. Thanks.

I'm a historian (and actually by profession lol) but a bit ago I decided that the teams that win the 60's Celtics, 80's Celtics/Lakers, 90's Bulls are interesting, but in the end the teams that are close but never make it are more interesting. 80's Bucks, the Suns, the Cavaliers, the Kings, Mavericks, etc. Blazers and Pacers, the Pistons pulled three titles out of it. Winning without a superstar. Many of these teams, and others, have great players but they get forgotten because there's no titles or Finals trips to remember them by. Iverson will forever be remembered because he led an average team through a crap conference, and swallowed his blood in the process, but better teams have died at the altar of Bird, Jordan and Shaq.

You get Jordan, you get Shaq, you get Duncan, you win titles. LeBron is in the late 80s Jordan phase, but nobody thinks he won't rack up titles. Superstars are incredible, building depth and making teams go the distance will always be something I love more. Pistons 2004 title is something I'll always love, not just because I've been forced to grow up on the Pistons, but because they were underdogs and completely controlled the series to the point that they put 6-4 Corliss Williamson on Shaq down the stretch of games and had a swagger I hope I will see topped. Spurs have been similar. I know everyone hates the 2005 Finals, but I loved it, probably the best of my lifetime.

I did like Cavs-Magic last season because the Magic said, here's how we're going to beat you, stop us. And the Cavs never did. Pistons did the same thing to the Lakers in 2004. Spurs did it to the Suns over and over.

Last edited by benji on Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Benji reading your posts gets me so wet sometimes.

^

On topic,congrats to Nellie,even though hes the most winningest coach,i doubt hes the best.

His name is Don Nelson, not Phil Jackson.

Say this for Nelson, while he's one of the worst coaches at developing talent and properly organizing it (I think he gets bored and that's why Dallas got better after Avery Johnson came in and set in stone a rotation, it's why the Warriors peaked when he had a team he could interchange while not being able to handle a team stocked with talent a problem he also ran into in Dallas as they added pieces) he's also incredible at finding places for guys. Look at who Golden State has been playing, Tolliver, Morrow, Reggie Williams, Chris Hunter, Kelenna Azubuike, all undrafted nobodies who he's found roles for where they can put up good numbers and contribute. In the past guys like Matt Barnes he recreated their entire games, convinced Stephen Jackson he could run a team, etc.

I can't help but wonder if Nelson is like a Doug Collins or Larry Brown (Rick Carlisle?), a guy you want to bring in for a short period to push and build a team, and then move onto someone else who can put things properly. After two or three years, you really don't want any of these guys to still be at the helm as their insanity holds the team back.

Nelson in the 80s with the Bucks was a different coach when I look at his rotations, he was far more restrained. Some of the concepts were there, as were some of the flaws. Nelson's biggest failing is, as Jeffx somewhat noted, his desire to find some key change that will put a team over. Sometimes it works, when he plucked an aging Walt Williams out of nowhere to pull the Kings defense apart and beat them. Other times, it implodes when he's playing a Devean George or Vladimir Radmanovic.

If I ran a team that owned a D-League team, I'd actually want him to be the coach. Just from his mad experiments you'd learn more about your players.

Nelson has been around long enough I give him a pass, but its not like many coaches make sense. Guys like Mike Dunleavy and P.J. Carlesimo keep getting gigs, while Eric Musselman, whose 2003-04 is one of the greatest coaching feats in NBA history, is stuck doing color commentary drunk on D-League games. (Not that I'm entirely complaining, who doesn't love five minute long stories about getting tacos?)

Great stuff as always, benji. My beef with Nellie is his "mad genius" approach to basketball. He wouldn't know how to coach a big man if his life depended on it. I mean, Patrick Ewing at forward? I knew his ass was done in NY with that hot mess. And the same thing is going on with D'Anfoni. I guess I'm just too old skool - I like basketball centered around the big man, working from the inside-out(combined with tough defense), instead of the reverse. I can't sand Larry Brown, either - he's a diva, a liar and a fucking cry-baby. But his style(tough defense/smart offense) is more conducive to winning basketball. Just look at his record - the friggin' Clippers were a playoff team under Brown.

I do give Nellie credit for what he did in Milwaukee. He was just the victim of bad luck, playing in the same conference with those powerful Sixer and Celtic teams of the early-to-mid 80s. The one time they beat Boston in the playoffs(1983), they had the misfortune to play that great Sixer team led by Dr.J & Moses Malone, losing 4-1 in the conference finals.

Riley never won any titles by slowing the pace, the best he got was the hate crime known as the 1994 Finals. He won all his titles pushing his team into the top half of the league in pace.

Three reasons why Riley's Knicks were always bridesmaids:

1) Charles Smith in '93

2) Knicks were never able to get another superstar to help Patrick(please don't mention John Starks).

3) Riley would have won in '94 if he wasn't so stubborn about keeping that idiot in the game when he had Ro Blackman on the bench. Even now he says it was a mistake.

I'm a historian (and actually by profession lol) but a bit ago I decided that the teams that win the 60's Celtics, 80's Celtics/Lakers, 90's Bulls are interesting, but in the end the teams that are close but never make it are more interesting. 80's Bucks, the Suns, the Cavaliers, the Kings, Mavericks, etc. Blazers and Pacers, the Pistons pulled three titles out of it. Winning without a superstar. Many of these teams, and others, have great players but they get forgotten because there's no titles or Finals trips to remember them by. Iverson will forever be remembered because he led an average team through a crap conference, and swallowed his blood in the process, but better teams have died at the altar of Bird, Jordan and Shaq.

You get Jordan, you get Shaq, you get Duncan, you win titles. LeBron is in the late 80s Jordan phase, but nobody thinks he won't rack up titles. Superstars are incredible, building depth and making teams go the distance will always be something I love more. Pistons 2004 title is something I'll always love, not just because I've been forced to grow up on the Pistons, but because they were underdogs and completely controlled the series to the point that they put 6-4 Corliss Williamson on Shaq down the stretch of games and had a swagger I hope I will see topped. Spurs have been similar. I know everyone hates the 2005 Finals, but I loved it, probably the best of my lifetime.

I did like Cavs-Magic last season because the Magic said, here's how we're going to beat you, stop us. And the Cavs never did. Pistons did the same thing to the Lakers in 2004. Spurs did it to the Suns over and over.

Historian with basketball fever. We need more of you benji kind in the basketball debate sites. I almost missed you in another forum where there are too many Kobe nut huggers.

Definitely 2005 Finals wasn't my favorite, but they both deserved to be there, so I didn't really mind it. 2004 Pistons was great. Other than Gary and Karl failing to get a ring despite of sacrifise they made, I really enjoyed it, since I also like seeing underdogs surprising everybody, sort of like Cinderella story I guess. That's also probably why I became a fan of Wade. It was all Lebron and Melo before the draft and for the first year, but look now where Wade is. He may still be an underdog to those names, but he also earned the place among top players in league. Also his lifestory is inspiring and he's not as cocky or demanding as others.

I've said it before but I'll say it again, the only thing I found boring about the 2005 Finals was that the first four games were double digit wins and not all that exciting. The series going to seven games with the last three contests being closer and the pivotal fifth game going into overtime along with Robert Horry's heroics boosted the excitement level. The 2007 Finals on the other hand were extremely lacklustre.

What's not to like about the 2005 Finals? Larry Brown saying "I love you" to his players instead of doing more coaching during the final timeout was priceless. It's like benji saying to fuck stats and watch the games.

What's not to like about the 2005 Finals? Larry Brown saying "I love you" to his players instead of doing more coaching during the final timeout was priceless. It's like benji saying to fuck stats and watch the games.

You always hear fans criticize today's NBA ball for lacking fundamentals. Well, for me, Spurs-Pistons was as good as it gets, but the critics STILL weren't satisified. I heard nonsense like 'boring'.

I will always remember Don Nelson's Warriors DOMINATING the 67-15 Mavs in the first round of the 2007 playoffs.