Phil Jackson, widely considered the greatest basketball coach of all time, is underrated.
Confused? Did you need to reread that statement a couple times? That’s understandable. How can someone with 11 championship rings, who coached arguably the defining dynasty in basketball history, and who led one of the most recognizable athletes of all time in Michael Jordan, be underrated?
On the surface, it sounds ridiculous.
But Jackson’s legacy has, in a strange way, been reduced by those very accolades. When he’s referenced just as “the coach of the ’90s Bulls,” or “Michael Jordan’s coach” or “the guy who ran the triangle,” it flattens what he actually was. It turns a historically great and forward-thinking basketball mind into a caricature of success.
And that undersells him.
A few numbers help illustrate just how dominant Jackson was. He holds the highest win percentage in NBA history among coaches with at least 250 wins at 70.4%. No coach with 1,000 wins has even reached 65%. Despite ranking just 15th in total games coached, he sits eighth in total wins, first in wins against teams over .500, first in playoff wins, and first in playoff win percentage among championship-winning coaches.
This article could easily turn into a full breakdown of Jackson’s résumé, but that’s not the point.
The point is this: Phil Jackson wasn’t just the greatest coach of all time. He was one of the most forward-thinking basketball minds the league has ever seen. And the narrative that developed during his time with the Knicks, that he was a dinosaur who let the game pass him by, doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.
The “Dinosaur” Narrative
When Jackson was ousted as president of the Knicks, the reaction was immediate. Articles and think pieces flooded in, many reading like eulogies for his career. The prevailing belief was that the game had moved beyond him.
He was outdated. Stuck in his ways. Too committed to an old system.
That idea quickly became accepted as fact.
But it’s worth asking whether it was ever accurate.
The Triangle Misunderstood
The most common criticism of Jackson during his Knicks tenure was his commitment to the triangle offense. It was framed as outdated, rigid, and incompatible with the modern NBA.
That perspective misses the point entirely.
The triangle was never about rigidity. In fact, it was designed as a counter to rigid, scripted offensive systems. Its core principles are spacing, read-and-react decision-making, and involving all five players as active participants in the offense.
That should sound familiar. Because it’s exactly how the modern NBA operates.
Jackson’s misfortune was timing. He wanted to hire Steve Kerr, a former player who understood those principles better than almost anyone. Many around the league expected Kerr to land in New York. Instead, Kerr chose Golden State, whether due to contractual reasons or the Warriors’ superior roster.
What followed is important.
Kerr went on to coach one of the most dominant teams in NBA history, using a system built on spacing, ball movement, and off-ball activity. In many ways, it was an evolved version of triangle principles. The Warriors didn’t abandon Jackson’s philosophy, they expanded it.
The idea that the triangle is archaic comes largely from how it looked in the ’90s, when teams had dominant post players. But that was a function of personnel, not philosophy.
Watch the Warriors today, and you’ll see triangle actions constantly, often initiated through Draymond Green. Watch the Denver Nuggets when Nikola Jokić operates in the post, and you’ll see similar structures. The difference is spacing and personnel, not ideology.
If anything, the modern NBA validated Jackson’s thinking rather than disproved it.
The Kerr What-If
The basketball fit was already there. The bigger question is how different the narrative would look if Jackson had actually landed Kerr in New York.
Kerr’s success in Golden State is often framed as a departure from Jackson’s philosophy, when it’s really an extension of it. Kerr took the foundational ideas of the triangle and adapted them to a new era of spacing and shooting.
Jackson saw that potential early.
Had Kerr gone to New York and implemented a similar system, the conversation around Jackson’s tenure might look very different today.
Instead, Jackson became tied to a Knicks roster that couldn’t execute what he envisioned.
Roster Decisions That Aged Better Than You Think
The second major criticism of Jackson centered on his roster management. This is another area where the narrative doesn’t fully align with reality.
Take the Kristaps Porzingis draft.
At the time, the reaction was harsh. Knicks fans famously booed the selection. Porzingis, or “Tingus Pingus” as he was mockingly dubbed, was seen as a risky and confusing pick.
But Porzingis quickly proved his value, emerging as a highly skilled, floor-spacing big man and earning the “unicorn” label.
So how does that fit the idea that Jackson was out of touch? It frankly doesn’t.
But what is far more interesting is what happened next.
The Porzingis Evaluation
After Porzingis’ second season, his value was at its peak. Many viewed him as a future superstar. Jackson, however, was now skeptical. And he wasn’t quiet about it.
Jackson questioned Porzingis’ professionalism, pointing to missed exit meetings and concerns about his approach.
Check: Porzingis has now played for six teams and has rarely left on ideal terms.
Jackson questioned his durability, believing his frame wouldn’t hold up over a full NBA career.
Check.
Jackson questioned his offensive development, particularly his willingness to become more well-rounded in the paint.
Check: Porzingis has only shot above 50% from the field once in his career.
Jackson explored trading him at peak value, a move that was widely criticized at the time. Reports suggested potential returns could have included assets like the pick that became Jayson Tatum.
He didn’t pull the trigger. But the evaluation itself looks far more reasonable in hindsight than it did at the time.
The Carmelo Anthony Rift
Jackson also faced criticism for his relationship with Carmelo Anthony.
Anthony resisted the triangle and preferred a more isolation-heavy style. Jackson, on the other hand, viewed that style as limiting a team’s ceiling. He didn’t build the roster around Anthony, he inherited it.
At the time, public opinion largely sided with Anthony.
Looking back, Jackson’s concerns hold more weight.
Anthony’s post-Knicks career never reached the level many expected, and the limitations Jackson identified became more apparent over time. His assessment of Anthony as a player whose style didn’t translate to championship-level success was, at minimum, defensible.
The Bigger Picture
It’s easy to celebrate Phil Jackson as the coach of the 1996 Bulls or as the architect of 11 championships.
That version of his legacy is already secure.
What’s often overlooked is the way he saw the game. Jackson wasn’t reacting to where basketball was, he was anticipating where it was going. His core principles, spacing, movement and shared responsibility, are now foundational to how the sport is played.
The idea that the game passed him by simply doesn’t hold up. If anything, the game caught up to him.
And that’s why, in a strange way, Phil Jackson is still underrated.
If this was your kind of read, you’ll like what’s next. Get The Sandman Ticket, our free, weekly newsletter with picks, insights, and a little bit of everything we love about sports.
