Kobe's maturation and leadership. Pau's interior presence. Lamar's rediscovered confidence. Fisher's calming influence. The unity and energy of the Lakers' bench. Mitch Kupchak's shrewd moves. Heck, Chris Wallace's stupid moves. I've read a lot of stories explaining the reason for the Lakers' success this season, all of them correct to a degree. They, of course, make the Lakers who they are. But it's so easy to overlook the biggest reason for the Lakers success because he's only doing what's always been expected of him. He's used to all this - and we're used to him being used to it. We even forget he's there. We forget about Phil Jackson.

People love to hate Phil, almost as much as they love to hate Kobe. But just like Kobe, they secretly wish he was working for their franchise. Everyone knows the rap against him - he only wins because he always has great players. He's handed ready made teams. The growing up happens before he gets there. He just sits there and does nothing during games. It's incredible that a man who has coached 9 championship teams, owns the most playoff wins in NBA history and the greatest winning percentage of all time would need to prove himself, but there he stands, still unproven to many. Not that he cares. Phil's motivation is his own. But the questions and doubts linger, unfair as they may be.

Phil's 1:9 ratio of Coach of the Year awards to championship rings has to be the worst ever - a dubious distinction that he'll probably always own. For historical perspective, Don Nelson's ratio is 3:0. (Math nerds: please don't correct me on the impossibility of zero as a denominator, thank you very much). The point is Phil's consistent excellence is overshadowed by the exciting coaches whose surprise teams overachieve (Doc Rivers, Sam Mitchell) or shoot their load in the regular season (Mike D'Antoni, Avery Johnson, Del Harris). And perhaps that's the greatest compliment Phil can receive - we just expect greatness from him. But it doesn't do historical justice to a man that has deserved more recognition than has been sent his way.

So here Phil is, once again, in the NBA Finals, for the 11th time as a coach. But, as even he has admitted, this one feels different. For all his greatness and for all his rings, this current 3 year stint with the Lakers may be his greatest coaching achievement yet, simply because it's been unexpected and he's done all the things people said he couldn't do. In short, he's answered the critics.

Only wins with ready-made teams? He took 2004-2005's 34-48 Lakers (who proceeded to make the team WORSE by trading their second best player, Caron Butler, for Stone-Hands Stone-Brains Kwame right before Jackson's arrival) and led them to the playoffs right away, and within 3 years turned them into 2007-2008's Western Conference NBA Finals representative. Check.

Can't develop young players? I present to you Luke Walton (2003 Draft), Sasha Vujacic (2004), Andrew Bynum (2005), Ronny Turiaf (2005), and Jordan Farmar (2006). Besides Andrew Bynum, a raw teenage project, all these picks were in the 20s or later and two of these picks, Walton and Turiaf, were second rounders. Huge check. (And a pat on the back of the scouting team).

Can't stretch an overmatched and under-talented team to play beyond people's expectations? Does taking an Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion and 2-time MVP Steve Nash led team to 7 games with Kwame Brown, Smush Parker and Luke Walton as 3 of the 5 starters count? I'd say that's a check.

It's hard for him to do more, but I can't shake the feeling that the detractors will still be there, doubting, hating. Should the Lakers win, the "He only wins championships because he has great players" argument will inevitably arise, despite the sheer idiocy of the statement. It's the price you pay for being on top. Phil might never win the minds of his critics, but at least he continues to win where it counts.