The claim that JJ Redick now has a higher win percentage than Gregg Popovich — along with the statistic that his Los Angeles Lakers are 57-4 when leading after three quarters — is creating a lot of buzz. On its face, it’s a bold contrast, but the context behind the numbers shows why this comparison needs to be taken with serious caution. I’ll walk you through what’s true, what’s misleading, and why “highest win percentage thus far” doesn’t automatically make Redick superior all-time.
First, the numbers behind the headline. As of late November 2025, Redick’s Lakers are 63-36 overall as a head coach (spanning his time in charge). (Yahoo Sports) That works out to roughly a .636 winning percentage. Meanwhile, after some recent adjustments (the league re-credited 77 games that took place when Redick wasn’t coaching the San Antonio Spurs back to interim coach Mitch Johnson), Popovich’s final official career record was reset to 1,390-824 — giving him a .628 winning percentage. (NBA) A quick glance: that puts Redick just a tick above Popovich numerically right now.
Second — and this is where a lot of the nuance comes in — the sample sizes are dramatically different. Popovich coached nearly 2,200 regular-season games over nearly three decades. (Encyclopedia Britannica) He built, adapted, and succeeded across multiple eras, vastly different rosters, shifting league styles. Redick, by contrast, has just over 90 games under his belt as an NBA head coach. (Grokipedia) Basing a “higher win percentage” comparison on such a small sample (less than one-and-a-half full seasons) does not carry the same weight as Popovich’s career-long body of work.
Third: the claim about being 57-4 when leading after three quarters, which works out to a 93.4% win rate in those situations, has been widely reported — and indeed is currently described as the best such record in NBA history (for coaches with a minimum threshold of games coached). (Yahoo Sports) That stat suggests one thing very clearly: when Redick’s Lakers start well and build a lead by the end of the 3rd quarter, they overwhelmingly close out games. That’s an impressive indicator of in-game management, mental focus, and execution — especially since this trend spans into the present season as well. (Yahoo Sports)
Fourth — but crucially — context matters when interpreting the “leading after 3rd quarter” stat. A high win rate when leading after 3 quarters tells you about finishing games strong; it does not say anything about how often the Lakers are building those leads in the first place. If a team rarely gets leads, or frequently plays close games, this stat could be misleading. And importantly: being great at closing doesn’t guarantee success in the playoffs, when game plans, adjustments, fatigue, injuries, and opponent intensity all change the dynamic. Indeed, in his first full season (2024–25), Redick’s Lakers went 50–32 in the regular season but were eliminated 1–4 in the first round of the playoffs. (Wikipedia) That early exit puts a damper on the “win-percentage bragging” when you consider long-term success needs postseason results.
Fifth — and perhaps the most important — legacy and career arc differ wildly between the two. Popovich didn’t just accumulate wins; he won championships (five), adapted through roster turns (rookies, aging legends, rebuilds), and maintained sustained excellence over decades. (Encyclopedia Britannica) Redick has proven promising in a short timeframe with a very different Lakers roster and a league landscape very different from most of Popovich’s era. Great start — but far too early to judge legacy.
Sixth: numbers don’t tell the full story — and good coaches are more than just win rates. Coaching longevity, consistency across different teams and rosters, ability to reinvent, adaptability, playoff success, championship pedigree — all matter. Popovich’s resume hits on all those. Redick’s is still being written.
Seventh: some caution from analysts and fans themselves. On social media and forums, many Lakers fans are celebrating the stat. For example, one Reddit thread says
But others are quick to point out how early it is to be declaring Redick better than Popovich — calling the comparison “dumb” or “a joke” because of the small sample size and the long history Popovich has. (Reddit)
Finally: what does this really tell us — and what it doesn’t. What this check confirms is that Redick’s start as a head coach has been exceptionally strong. His team closes out games when they have built leads, his record is higher (for now) than Popovich’s official career percentage, and the 57-4 figure is historically elite in its context. But what it doesn’t prove is that Redick is — or will become — on the same level as Popovich in terms of legacy, sustained excellence, ability to win championships, or long-term adaptation.
So yes — the headline “Redick has higher win percentage than Popovich” is technically correct right now. And yes — the 57-4 when leading after three quarters stat is historic. But using that to argue that Redick is already “better” than Popovich, or on the path to GOAT-level coaching status, is a major leap, and misses critical context about sample size, era differences, playoff performance, and long-term achievement.
If you want — I can run a mini statistical deep-dive right now: compare Redick’s coaching efficiency stats (point differential, pace, defensive/offensive rating) vs Popovich’s best seasons — to see how they match up beyond win-loss. Want me to build that?
