Who is better, Taurasi or Jackson?
Phil Jackson leads with a GOAT score of 94.8 against 94.2 for Diana Taurasi — a gap of 0.6 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently ranks Phil Jackson above Diana Taurasi: 94.8 vs 94.2. Phil Jackson leads on Peak, Honours, Dominance. Diana Taurasi leads on Longevity, Statistics.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Jackson wins: Dominance, Peak, Honours
Taurasi wins: Longevity, Statistics
Shareable URL · /compare/diana-taurasi-vs-phil-jackson
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Taurasi leads in 2 of 5 weighted categories.
Jackson — Insufficient verified career data to calculate a reliable GOAT Score.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
Setting the pace at age 22
No verified birth date for Jackson — shown in the pro-debut view instead.
Every career is cut at the season the athlete turned 22, so a rookie today is measured against exactly what a legend had banked by the same birthday.
| Metric | TaurasiRetired | JacksonRetired |
|---|---|---|
| WNBA points | 10,646 | — |
| WNBA titles | 3 | — |
| Olympic golds | 6 | — |
| All-Star selections | 11 | — |
| Finals MVP | 1 | — |
| Seasons played | 20 | — |
| NBA championships as coach | — | 11 |
| NBA championships as player | — | 2 |
| Career coaching wins | — | 1,155 |
| NBA Coach of the Year awards | — | 1 |
| Seasons as a head coach | — | 20 |
| Dominance w25% | 94 | 96 |
| Peak w20% | 93 | 97 |
| Longevity w20% | 96 | 90 |
| Honours w20% | 94 | 98 |
| Statistics w15% | 94 | 92 |
Phil Jackson leads with a GOAT score of 94.8 against 94.2 for Diana Taurasi — a gap of 0.6 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Taurasi scores higher on statistics, longevity. Jackson leads on peak, dominance, honours.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Taurasi: 94.2, Jackson: 94.8.
Make your case for Taurasi vs Jackson. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.