20 Second Timeout is the place to find the best analysis and commentary about the NBA.
Tuesday, April 26, 2022
From the Archives: Bob Cousy Interview, June 15, 2004
On June 15, 2004, I did a phone interview with Bob Cousy. At that time, I was working on a feature story about Cousy's teammate Sam Jones. During our conversation, Cousy provided insight and background information for not only the Jones article but many other articles as well.
Bob Cousy is a living legend and a basketball pioneer who played collegiately for Holy Cross more than 70 years ago before running the point for the Boston Celtics' first six championship teams (1957, 1959-63). Cousy led the NBA in assists for eight straight seasons (1953-60), a record that stood until John Stockton led the league in assists for nine straight seasons (1988-96).
It is unfortunate that Cousy's greatness is misunderstood by people who lack basic knowledge of basketball history. Cousy was not only inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 1971, but he was selected to each of the NBA's special anniversary teams: 25th, 35th, 50th, 75th. The only other players chosen for all four teams are George Mikan, Bob Pettit, and Bill Russell.
After his playing career, Cousy was a successful college coach at Boston College (114-38, five postseason appearances in six seasons, NIT runner-up in 1969), and he coached briefly in the NBA as well. When Cousy coached the Kansas City-Omaha Kings (now known as the Sacramento Kings), Nate Archibald became the first--and still only--player to lead the NBA in scoring and assists in the same season (1972-73).
Cousy received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2019.
It was a privilege to spend so much time talking hoops with Bob Cousy, and I think that now is the perfect time to share the knowledge that he shared with me. Some of the quotes from this interview have appeared in previous articles that I wrote, but the interview has never been published in full before. I have edited it slightly for clarity, and I have embedded links to relevant articles published subsequent to the interview:
Friedman: "The genesis of this article came from an interview that I did with Slick Leonard, the Pacers broadcaster. He mentioned to me that he thought that Sam Jones is possibly the most underrated NBA guard ever. I am interested in your perspective as a teammate of Sam Jones. What was it that made him such a special player?"
Cousy: "A whole lot of God-given physical skills, obviously, with a pretty acute intensity for the game. I'm always a little startled when I hear announcers talk about this jock or that jock on a professional level and how competitive they are and how much they want to win. Hell, it's kind of a basic requirement for all professionals in any field that you have to come to it with a certain passion, but I would agree that some have it to a larger degree than others. But the point is that Sam had a very competitive attitude. I'm not sure that's not more germane to those of us who came out of the ghettoes of those years, and of course if you were black and you came out of the ghettoes that made you even more passionate and urgent about being successful at what you were doing, which in his case was (playing) a sport with a lot of God-given skills. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that Sam was in fact the most underrated guard who ever played, but I'd vote for the top three, David."
Friedman: "I noticed in researching this article that Sam Jones averaged 27 points per game in game sevens, and that Boston went 9-0 in those games. Obviously, that scoring average was even higher than his regular season average. From your perspective playing alongside him, what enabled him to be even more successful in a high pressure situation--a game seven situation--than he was in the regular season or in other playoff games?"
Cousy: "I was completely unaware of that, as is most of the world I think, and that is an interesting stat, because that is, obviously, I would say astounding really. All of us that played with the Celtics during those years benefited from having played--especially, I guess, myself in terms of being the playmaker--with six or seven other Hall of Famers. So the defenses, whether in game seven or otherwise, were not able to focus on any one individual. These days, when it was Pippen and Michael, or even L.A. now--I mean it's fine to talk about Malone and Payton, but they're almost ignoring them to focus on Shaq and Kobe--but even with two guys it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to carry the load by yourself. But when you're surrounded by six or seven other guys it's a little easier to do your thing. And I guess an explanation--as I said, I was unaware of that stat--where Sam is concerned, the fact that you just told me that Leonard said he was perhaps the most underrated guard. If in fact there is truth to this and if in fact the opponents did not give him his due respect, that also--given his talent level--could be the explanation of why he did so well in game sevens. In other words, if they were busy watching me or Heinsohn or Sharman or whoever in the seventh games, if they were more concerned about some of us than they were with Sam, then obviously they made a mistake. That stat proves it."
Friedman: "In that sense, it would almost be a little like--taking a current example with the Lakers of a couple years ago--if the opponent is keying on Shaq or Kobe then it leaves an opening for Robert Horry. Obviously, Horry is not as good of a player as Sam Jones was, but it leaves an opening for someone else to make shots if the other team is keying on someone else, and that could be a part of it."
Cousy: "I wouldn't use that analogy myself, at least where Horry is concerned, but as a general statement there might be some truth to that. If in preparation for game sevens--but, I'll tell you, I don't know how they could be overlooking Sam. Sam was as pure of a shooter--with the people I played with, he and Sharman were the purest shooters who came through that period. You can talk about Jerry West and Oscar Robertson, but Sam, in my judgment, would outshoot any of those guys. I've said for years that it was a joy playing with people like Sharman and Sam because both of them moved extremely well without the ball, and I don't think that I ever gave it to them when they didn't make the damn shot. Now that's an exaggeration, obviously, but in my mind I felt that way.
When I was on the floor with either one they were always my first option because as a point guard you are playing percentages all the time out there. Both of them moved very well without the ball. Sharman was a little more relentless, he just kept making circles and he was a bitch to guard. In Sam's case, he was about as quick as any guard that has ever played the game. I read where Sam has said that all we had to do was find the open shot and the ball would be there waiting for us. In Sam's case, as I said, I knew when he made his move all I had to do was put the ball where he was supposed to be and the timing was such that he would get there just in time to catch it and throw the damn thing up and the defender would always be a step behind because of Sam's quickness. He was an extraordinary athlete and from the standpoint of basketball and the point guard's version of it he was a joy to play with because you knew that he could always get free."
Friedman: One of the things that is interesting about the Celtics of your era--and this has been noted by other people before--is that you basically trained your replacement. In a lot of cases you would have a Hall of Fame caliber player playing behind you, like Ramsey preparing Havlicek to be the sixth man or, in your case, as a guard, while you and Sharman were starting you had K.C. Jones and Sam Jones coming off of the bench."
Cousy: "Four Hall of Famers, not a bad lineup."
Friedman: "Right, yeah. I have a two part question: what was your role mentoring Sam Jones when you were a veteran and he came in, and then also, on the flip side of that, how did it help your career when you look at the bench and see a young guy with all this talent to realize that you have to maintain a high level of play to keep your job?'
Cousy: "I wasn't dealing with Sam in terms of how to become the point guard. K.C. became the point guard."
Friedman: "I understand that you played different positions, but just from the standpoint of being a veteran--or would you say your mentoring was more directed toward K.C.?"
Cousy: "Yeah. KC was going to replace me and become the playmaker. It was important that he and Sam be on the same page just as Sharman and I were. Most of this is instinctive, David, especially in basketball. In other sports--I don't know about hockey, but in football, for instance, a lot of people carry out assignments on each play and everything is structured and disciplined. Basketball is more of a free-flowing game of instinct and reaction to an action. It's not so much how long you play with someone--depending on how alert and acute his mental process is, you just develop little hand signals, head signals, eye signals as to what to do in the middle of the action.
In Sam's case, he was even easier to feed in an open court situation than Sharman because of his speed and quickness. Normally people associate basketball players with height, but in my judgment speed and quickness is what separates the men from the boys. In an open court situation, given Sam's ability to back door a player or change his direction or make a quick move, if the defender--if I were out there with him and we had some court to work with--made the slightest mistake, if he didn't respect Sam's quickness every minute, if he tried to overplay and keep the ball from getting to Sam, that in itself--the minute he knew he was being overplayed, the minute I saw it I knew that Sam was going to go backdoor. It was just a matter of waiting. This is not something you learn at that level. You learn this in the schoolyards of the world that we all came through. In that sense, there wasn't any kind of tutoring.
Arnold (Cousy is one of the few people who always called Red Auerbach by his actual first name, Arnold) made his big speech my first year--'I don't give a shit how Cousy throws the ball as long as it gets to the intended receiver'--because that first year they weren't quite catching all my passes. Well, that was a momentary response. I mean, this is not rocket science. By the time guys get to this level they have a lot of skills, some guys have more than others. In terms of learning to play with myself or any so-called quarterback, you are talking about a matter of weeks, you're not talking about two seasons. With a player like Sam, hell, you can almost do it from day one. So, it wasn't a question of sitting down--self interest motivates what most of us do in sports or otherwise. Sam knew that in order to get the ball from me he had to find that open spot and he knew that I would get the ball to him. I knew that Sam had the quickness to do that. So we're kind of waiting on each other to react to every situation. That's why, in my judgment, in basketball--unlike in other sports--you can't predetermine. Every time down the floor is a different situation. You can't predetermine. Your action is a reaction to what the defender is doing. Both players, after you've played with a guy for--never mind six years--six days you acclimate yourself pretty quickly. Now it's a question of utilizing your particular skills.
Where Sam and I were concerned, it was a matter of him having confidence in my passing skills and my vision to know once he made that move and that cut and got away from his defender even momentarily, as he said, the ball would be there ready to shoot. He didn't have to put it on the floor. Offense in basketball, the criteria in my judgment is to be effective with the least amount of wasted motion. Sam and I could do both. I didn't want to waste a single pass. Sam had the ability to get to that open spot and know that the ball would be there. It was kind of acclimating ourselves to each other and that did not take a long period of time."
Friedman: "What you're saying reminds me of something that Charles Barkley says sometimes on the TNT broadcasts. He says that, in a sense, basketball is an easy game--that great players make it easy, but that bad players make it difficult. What you are saying is that with the Celtics you had a lot of cerebral players, players who picked up the game quickly, and had God-given ability, and the more great players you had out there the easier the game was."
Cousy: "Plus we played in a system that lent itself to that, David. We relied primarily on transition rather than set plays. There was always constant movement. We were always trying to impose the maximum pressure on the opponent whether it was on defense or offense. We tried to ram it down their throats all the time. We always tried to have them backpedaling and trying to decide what we were going to do. When you have that kind of speed and quickness, God, you can pretty much call your own offense in that kind of situation."
Friedman: "I would say, isn't that something that is really missing from today's game?"
Cousy: "Completely."
Friedman: "What stunned me--I covered a couple of the Pistons-Pacers playoff games--you would see so many times that there would be a three-on-two or the potential of a three-on-two break and the point guard dribbles to the foul line and then circles back out."
Cousy: "There are 29 teams in the league, David, and maybe three or four of them are running in transition (the Charlotte Bobcats--later renamed as the Charlotte Hornets--became the NBA's 30th team in the 2004-05 season, after this interview took place). We could talk about this all day. I think it's a basic insecurity, I think that it's all the pressures on the coaches today, I think partially that it's ego--they want to stand up and hold up numbers. 'Look at that, he's orchestrating everything.' It's not that kind of game. Basketball, unlike the other sports, is a game of free flow."
Friedman: "At least, it should be."
Cousy: "Yeah. That's the way I learned it and I'll go to my grave believing that. I had this discussion yesterday with a successful college coach in our area who tries to coach the same way. The more you structure it, especially on a professional level--you need a basic structure and discipline, I'm not saying go out there and go schoolyard, where the critics will say, 'Oh shit, they're throwing the ball all over the lot.' You need a basic structure, but once that is put in place the rest of it has to be--the option of a play in basketball works better 90% of the time than the play itself. The more you structure yourself--that's why all of these coaches today spend so much money on film and preparation. All of them know what the other teams are going to do. It still comes down to the individual moves of the players, and when you over-structure on a professional level, in my judgment, you neutralize (your own) superior talent. Maybe on a college level, high school level, as you go down the line, sure you need more structure and discipline because you are not dealing with that level of skilled players, so they need more coaching and more structure. But on this level, to structure to the point that 24 or 25 of the 29 coaches do is missing a golden opportunity, not exploiting your skilled players to the degree that you should be, and as a result I think for the most part you get underachievement instead of overachievement. You've got to let the players on this level have confidence in their skills and their abilities."
Friedman: "I definitely agree with that. Getting back to Sam Jones, for a lot of my readers who would not have had the opportunity to see Sam Jones play, what current or recent guard reminds you most of him either in terms of shooting ability or performance in the clutch? What recent guard would be reminiscent of Sam in some way?"
Cousy: "David, I've been asked that about myself over the years. I don't know. If you are talking about Hall of Famers or great athletes in any sport, I think that we all develop our own signature. I momentarily identified with Ernie D (Ernie DiGregorio), in terms of a small portion of his game. We used to like to do a few things the same way. Other than that, I was never able to say. Everyone says John Stockton--"
Friedman: "Of course."
Cousy: "But we didn't play the same. Our styles were completely different, even though we utilized some of the same weapons.
Sam's signature was that backboard shot, but Sam could hurt you in every way imaginable. The only other one you would say that about would be Michael Jordan, but I wouldn't compare them, not so much because of skills, but Sam and Michael didn't play the same even though they utilized some of the same--they covered the board the same way. The point is that Sam was an absolute scoring machine. You might say Jerry West, he liked to use the backboard shot from time to time, but they weren't the same. I don't know. When I think of various centers who played the game--no one played like Kareem, certainly no one played like Russell, no one to this point plays like Shaq. No one springs to mind when you ask who reminds me of Sam. He was a great one and I haven't seen anyone who was able to score with the kind of proficiency that Sam did."
Friedman: "I asked the same question of Tommy Heinsohn when I interviewed him a couple days ago for this article and the name he threw out there--in terms of a guy who, like Sam, has the long distance game, the mid-range game, and the ability to drive, and that very few guards have a complete game like that--was Rip Hamilton from Detroit. Do you see any similarity there in terms of having all of the shots?"
Cousy: "As usual, I disagree with everything that Tommy says, including that (Cousy laughs). Number one, I don't think that Hamilton is going to be a Hall of Famer. He may--he has already played better in this series (the 2004 NBA Finals) than I thought he was capable of playing, and I hope that he continues tonight (game five) but I don't see any similarity other than the fact that they are both good shooters. Especially at this stage of the game. God, I think that is vastly underrating Sam."
Friedman: "I think that he meant it more from the standpoint of style, not necessarily skill. I didn't understand him to mean that Rip Hamilton is as good as Sam Jones--he made it pretty clear that he did not think that--but from the standpoint of style, because my question was not just about skill, but about style, the idea of someone who can shoot a variety of shots, not just a three point shooter or a driver."
Cousy: "I guess Tommy is more of a visionary than I am. I don't see anything of Sam's in Hamilton's game."
Friedman: "Well, I'll make sure to put it in there that you two completely disagreed on that (Cousy laughs)--I'll give you both equal time on that. I thought that it was an interesting comparison, but I see your point as well.
Back to what you said about Stockton for a minute, I guess obviously people make that comparison because your physical size is similar and you both accumulated high assist totals, but I guess a big difference people overlook is that in your day you were a big time scorer. You were in the top 10 or 15 in scoring for several years, whereas Stockton was not that type of scorer. Wouldn't that be another difference between the two of you?"
Cousy: "I made the reference earlier that in my judgment a good point guard is primarily concerned with accomplishing whatever he has to accomplish with the least amount of wasted motion. I never tried to throw an unnecessary pass or a meaningless pass if I could avoid it. This is what I saw in Stockton's game. I think that Stockton did the same thing and I had great respect for that, but we did it in different ways, and other than that our games were not similar. Stockton could score when he had to score--I didn't have to because I was surrounded by a bunch of scorers, so I knew what my role was, but when it came time to shoot--the effectiveness of a good point guard is obviously affected by how he can generate offense when necessary to gain the respect of the opponent. If the defender feels you are not a legitimate offensive threat then he is going to play you accordingly and make it much more difficult for you to be a playmaker, so one complements the other. The minute that a guard disrespects your shooting it's going to be tougher to do your passing game, so you've got to be enough of an offensive threat to keep the defense honest--which both Stockton and I were--and keep them playing and reacting to the faking that you are doing so that you can make your plays."
Friedman: "One last question I wanted to ask you about Sam Jones. I appreciate the time you have taken and the thoughtful answers you have given. This question is similar to one that was asked to Bill Russell. After he had retired, he was asked about playing against Kareem, and he responded, 'Young man, you have the question backwards.' So in asking this question I don't mean it as disrespect or that I am presuming the answer. I'm interested in your analysis of this. Picture Sam Jones in his prime playing against Kobe Bryant or Tracy McGrady in their primes. What would these matchups be like?"
Cousy: "They'd have a bitch of a time guarding each other, if that's the question. I'm asked all the time, 'Could you play in today's game?' and my reaction is the same as Russell's--a lot of guys playing today couldn't have played in our day, simply because there were less teams and the talent was more concentrated. If you are talking about Hall of Fame athletes in any sport, it transcends the time period. Baseball players that I have spoken to--Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Joe DiMaggio--Joe and Ted went to their deathbeds swearing that yesteryear's players were better than today's players. I don't know enough about it to make that judgment. I know that in all the other sports, like track and field, the records have fallen. Basketball, I look at the All-Star Game now and say, 'God, that is not the game that we played many years ago.' When I jumped as high as I could I got the bottom of the net and when Michael jumps as high as he can he jumps over the damn backboard. Yes, they've gotten bigger, better, stronger in basketball. Whether they execute the skills as well as we did, I would argue that point--the passing, dribbling, how to play the game skills, I think we could hold our own. When you are talking about Hall of Famers, Sam could easily play in today's era and give Kobe and Tracy and whoever all they could handle. When you are talking about McGrady, Kobe, Sam Jones--I mean, nobody could stop these guys. They have so many offensive weapons, unless you commit two or even three people to them you are not going to slow them down a lot. Sometimes they slow themselves down, like Kobe in this series (2004 NBA Finals), I don't know whether the business in Colorado has finally gotten to him or what, but he is not only ineffective in terms of being Kobe Bryant but he is losing his cool as well and he's not passing the ball the way he should. A lot of things go into the equation. Sam transcends the ages as well."
Friedman: "Right. I believe that. The point that I was getting at--as I indicated when I prefaced the question--I didn't mean that he couldn't (play well today). From an analytical standpoint--Sam went about 6-4 right?"
Cousy: "Yes."
Friedman: "Kobe and McGrady are 6-7 or 6-8. I was wondering, in one's mind's eye, picturing the matchup--Sam would bring the superior shooting, they would bring the superior size, what would the matchup actually look like or how would it go? I guess you would say that Sam would use his speed and quickness to get his shot off--"
Cousy: "Yeah, but these guys aren't slow either, David. As I said earlier, in my mind that's what separates the men from the boys. Both Tracy and Kobe, for their size, have speed in abundance as well, so what Sam would be giving up in height and maybe a little in strength he would make up by maybe being a little quicker and faster than these guys, but he wouldn't be blowing by anybody. All of us would be competitive, whether Sam is as good as Kobe, let someone else decide that. In our day at that point in time, God, there was no one who could create offensively as effectively as Sam could."
Friedman: "I've always thought--I wonder if you agree with this, I think that it is along the lines of what you are saying--that in looking at the players over the years that the top players from any era could compete with the top players from any other era, but what about the players who were 8-9-10 on the rosters in the 1950s or 1960s, do you think that they could compete?"
Cousy: "Well, if you are talking 8-9 as opposed to 11-12, the chances are that they would make the team simply because back then we only had eight teams or 10 teams but now there are 29 teams and there will be 30 next year. There are 29 teams but you only have about four centers in the league, David. How many point guards do you have? We have less than four. There are a lot of people who play that position, but I've been asked recently to name the top point guards. I get to Jason Kidd and Tony Parker and then I have to stop and think. You know what I'm saying? The chances are that (players) eight and nine could play today simply because there are so many more teams. Eleven and twelve I doubt."
Friedman: "The speed and quickness might become too big of a factor, right?"
Cousy: "Simply because of numbers. The situation in basketball today, it's sad when you see what the Celtics are going to have to go through--when you get to the bottom of the heap or close to the bottom, it can take you 20 years to rebuild because the demand is so much greater than the supply. I have no explanation for that. Basketball is the number two sport in the world in terms of participation. We have millions of kids playing it. I don't know why we don't produce more quality point guards and big people to play on the NBA level, but most teams in the NBA--even teams that have a center-type player--are utilizing the two power forward format. Look at Dallas, they have a 7-7 guy sitting on the bench for the most part--"
Friedman: "Shawn Bradley."
Cousy: "Yeah, Shawn Bradley. The point is, I have no explanation why (we aren't developing more point guards and centers) with all these kids (in America)--that's why we're looking for talent in China, Yugoslavia, Asia, and all these places. We're (America) just not producing enough talent to stock 29 teams--you can put bodies out there, but what you have--maybe that's the game plan for the NBA, in order to reach parity let's go to complete mediocrity. But the problem with that, as we've seen in the last eight or 10 years, is that creates two or three excellent teams, a half dozen good teams, and then the rest is just some degree of mediocrity. When you are shelling out 70, 80, 100 bucks--1000 bucks in some places--for a ticket to see L.A. play Milwaukee or Memphis--well, Memphis was fairly competitive this year--but that's not going to draw a lot of fans when you have that kind of differential between the teams, and that's what we've had in the NBA for quite a while now."
Friedman: "The lack of point guards is somewhat of a mystery, but I think that at least part of what happened with the lack of centers is that players who in the past would have been told, 'You're a center, get on the block,' are now called power forwards. Like Garnett or Duncan, in the past those guys would have been centers and the coach would have said, 'Look, you're a center, go on the block and play defense.' Now, they're called power forwards and they play facing the basket and they do all these other things."
Cousy: "That's a good point. The Hall of Fame just created this Bob Cousy point guard award. Jameer Nelson won it this year, the first year."
Friedman: "Right."
Cousy: "We created it because as players are coming through the schoolyards--even the point guards--they are getting bigger and stronger and they don't have to rely as much upon finesse. So they are not thinking about setting up (other players) as much as they are thinking about dunking. So the emphasis in the schoolyards as these guys are coming through maybe is having something to do with their mindset. They are not simply focusing on being point guards. There was some kind of disconnect, I thought, in the 1970s, and then Magic and Bird came along and reinvigorated the schoolyard kids in terms of the passing game because both of them did it so effectively. I think we are at a point where we need that kind of boost or impetus right now."
Friedman: "That brings up a natural question. What do you think of LeBron James? Can he have that kind of impact?"
Cousy: "Oh yes. I saw him only once, but this kid is the real McCoy. He can be whatever he wants to be. Maravich could have been the best point guard that ever played, but he was always with a team that needed him to score 35 points to be competitive, so despite his massive playmaking skills and what he could do with the ball and his vision he is remembered more as a scoring guard than as a creative guard--but that was because of his circumstances. LeBron is with a middle of the road team right now, but he could go either way--he could become a great scoring guard but in my judgment he has the skills to be a great point guard as well."
Friedman: "He seems to have tremendous court vision."
Cousy: "Absolutely. Absolutely. I saw him once, his first game in Boston earlier this year. We did the game (as local broadcasters). He didn't have a particularly effective game scoring--I think he scored 14, or whatever, but after the first quarter I was saying, 'This kid is the real McCoy.' I think he's going to be a great one in the Magic Johnson mold."
Friedman: "He sees the open man even when that man might not even realize that he is open and he delivers the ball."
Cousy: "Absolutely. He's going to be a great one."
Friedman: "Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. It was a great honor to speak with you."
NBA Selects 15 Greatest Coaches as Part of 75th Anniversary Celebration
The NBA's 75th Anniversary Team included all 50 players selected in 1996 to the NBA's 50 Greatest Players List, so it is surprising that the just-released list of 15 Greatest NBA coaches does not include all 10 of the coaches selected in 1996 to the NBA's 10 Greatest Coaches List. Here are the 10 coaches from the 1996 list (in alphabetical order):
Thus, Larry Brown, K.C. Jones, Steve Kerr, Gregg Popovich, Doc Rivers, Jerry Sloan, and Erik Spoelstra are new members of the list, while Bill Fitch and John Kundla missed the cut this time after appearing on the 1996 list.
If the NBA is taking the position that players should not be removed from All-Time Greatest Lists, then why remove coaches? Not only is this inconsistent in a general sense, but the exclusion of Kundla and Fitch is bizarre. Kundla led the Lakers to five championships, tied with Popovich and Riley for third in the all-time rankings behind only Jackson's 11 and Auerbach's nine. Taking out Kundla is a slap in the face not only to his great teams and great players, but to that entire era. Regarding Fitch, he ranks 11th all-time in regular season wins, he led the Celtics to the 1981 title, he coached the Rockets to the 1986 Finals, and he improved each team that he coached, from the expansion Cavaliers to the Celtics to the Rockets to the Nets to the Clippers. Fitch was legitimately ranked as a top 10 coach in 1996, and it is difficult to understand how he is not a top 15 coach now.
Larry Brown is considered one of the greatest basketball tacticians and teachers ever. He had not won an NBA title or reached the NBA Finals in 1996, but since that time he led his teams to three NBA Finals and he guided the Pistons to the 2004 championship. He clearly belongs on the list, and I have no problem with him being given one of the five new slots.
K.C. Jones may be one of the most underrated coaches of all-time. He won two titles (1984, 1986), and he ranks sixth all-time in regular season winning percentage. It makes sense to give him one of the five new slots.
Steve Kerr ranks sixth all-time with three titles (2015, 2017-18). He owns the best playoff winning percentage of all-time (.733), and he ranks third in regular season winning percentage (.694). He belongs on the list.
Gregg Popovich ranks third on the career regular season wins list, but he is just six wins away from passing Nelson and taking the number one spot. Popovich's regular season winning percentage has dropped to .659 (12th all-time) and will continue to drop because his current team is lousy, but--as mentioned above--he is tied for third all-time with five championships won (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014). He belongs on the list.
Doc Rivers ranks 10th in career wins but 37th in career winning percentage. Like Fitch, Rivers proved that he could take over bad teams and help them improve, a skill set that is valuable but also damages one's career winning percentage. Rivers led the Celtics to the 2008 title and the 2010 Finals. Rivers is an exceptional coach, and I have stood up for him many times when he received unjust criticism, including a lot of nonsense that Bill Simmons wrote about Rivers (part of a broader trend of arrogant media members assuming that they know a lot more about NBA coaching than they do). Rivers' 1993 book Those Who Love The Game is packed with insights and is a great read for anyone who wants to understand more about the NBA from the perspective of a savvy player (Rivers was still an active player when he co-wrote the book). However, Rivers also holds the coaching record for blowing 3-1 playoff series leads (three). Again, he is a very good coach and he has received unjust criticism in the past, but I would not rank him as one of the NBA's 15 greatest coaches. For sure, he is not a better coach than Kundla or Fitch.
Jerry Sloan and Nelson are the only coaches on either list who did not win a championship as a coach. Sloan led the Utah Jazz to two NBA Finals appearances (1997, 1998). Sloan ranks fourth in career regular season wins and 23rd in career regular season winning percentage. Sloan was a very good coach, but how can he be ranked ahead of five-time champion Kundla or one-time champion Fitch?
Erik Spoelstra ranks 24th in career regular season wins and 31st in career regular season winning percentage. He has led the Heat to two championships (2012-13) and five NBA Finals appearances (2011-14, 2020). Spoelstra has already established himself without question as a Hall of Fame coach, but is he really one of the 15 greatest NBA coaches of all-time?
There are several coaches who did not make either list who I would take over Rivers, Sloan, and Spoelstra. Alex Hannum won two NBA titles (1958, 1967) plus one ABA title (1969). He coached the only two teams to beat Bill Russell's Celtics in a playoff series. Bill Sharman's Lakers broke the regular season wins record set by Hannum's 76ers, and then they won the 1972 title. Tommy Heinsohn won two championships (1974, 1976) in a nine year coaching career, including a seven game triumph in 1974 against peak Kareem Abdul-Jabbar when Abdul-Jabbar was playing alongside Hall of Famers Oscar Robertson and Bobby Dandridge with the Milwaukee Bucks. Billy Cunningham led the 76ers to the 1983 championship with the greatest playoff record in NBA history up to that time (12-1; the 2001 Lakers went 15-1 in an expanded playoff format, and the 2017 Warriors went 16-1 after the playoff format was expanded again). Cunningham's 76ers had the best regular season record in the NBA for a six year span, and he ranks second in career regular season winning percentage (.698, just behind Jackson's .704). Cunningham ranks ninth in career playoff winning percentage.
Think of it this way: Who do you have to mention if you tell the story of the NBA decade by decade through the lens of coaching? John Kundla was the dominant coach in NBA history prior to Red Auerbach. Then Auerbach's Celtics dominated the late 1950s/early 1960s. Those Bill Russell-led Celtics--coached first by Auerbach and then by player-coach Russell--only lost two playoff series, both times to teams coached by Alex Hannum. Bill Sharman led the Lakers to their first title since moving to L.A. from Minneapolis. Red Holzman and Tommy Heinsohn were the only NBA coaches to win two titles in the 1970s. Lenny Wilkens led the Sonics to two Finals and one championship en route to setting the career regular season wins record (since broken, but he still ranks second).
Pat Riley, K.C. Jones, Chuck Daly, Bill Fitch, and Billy Cunningham were the championship coaches in the 1980s, which might have been the greatest decade in NBA history, featuring the Lakers, Celtics, 76ers, Pistons, and the amazing talents of the young Michael Jordan. Phil Jackson was obviously the coach of the 1990s and the 2000s, leading dynasties in Chicago and then L.A. Popovich won five titles in a 15 year period. Larry Brown sustained excellence for decades, and won a title versus a Phil Jackson-coached team. Steve Kerr helmed the NBA's most recent dynasty, winning three titles in a four year span.
That adds up to 16 coaches. I am not sure how the league settled on 15 coaches for the 75th Anniversary Team, but if the NBA can have 76 players on its 75th Anniversary Team then it can have 16 coaches. With all due respect to the coaches who I left off--each of whom I greatly respect--I feel good about that list of 16; some teams and some eras are more defined by coaches than others, and the coaches I listed are the seminal coaches in NBA history. Perhaps the most difficult cut for me is Spoelstra, but we have seen LeBron James win four titles with three different coaches, so I am more comfortable picturing the Heat winning with a different coach than I am picturing some of these other teams winning with a different coach; I am pretty sure that Riley could have left the front office and coached those teams to titles had that been necessary. I think that Spoelstra is a great, Hall of Fame coach, and he is possibly even a top 20 coach, but he falls just outside of my top 16.
Earlier I said that I am puzzled by the NBA removing coaches from the 1996 list, but if we are keeping the new list to 15 (or 16) and removing coaches then Nelson and Ramsay--not Kundla and Fitch--have to go. Nelson
was an innovator and he is the all-time regular season wins leader
(until Popovich passes him soon) but he ranks 54th in career regular season winning percentage and he never reached the NBA Finals
despite coaching a lot of very talented teams. Ramsay won one title in a 21 year coaching career, never reached another Finals, and had a losing playoff record; he was a great TV/radio commentator and a respected tactician, but in my estimation he is not one of the top 15 or 16 NBA coaches of all-time.
Lupica anticipated that another team would eagerly hire Jackson but Lupica did not expect Jackson to have much success: "Jackson will make the score of a lifetime and be set for life. What he won't ever be is as much of a genius as he was in Chicago. Here is just a partial genius list from the last 20 years: Jackson, Pat Riley, Jimmy Johnson, Bill Parcells, Tony La Russa, Whitey Herzog, Joe Gibbs, Bill Walsh. What we have found with all of them is that genius doesn't travel so well. And it never returns with another championship trophy."
Before his stint with the Bulls, Jackson coached the Albany Patroons to the 1984 CBA title. After that, he also coached a team to the Finals in the Puerto Rican professional league despite not speaking the language. Lupica's overall point about "genius" in coaching may have had some general validity but Lupica did not realize that Jackson was a specific exception.
Jackson left Chicago after the Bulls' "Last Dance" sixth championship in 1998. He sat out the lockout-shortened 1999 NBA season and then the L.A. Lakers hired him to mold Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant into champions. Prior to Jackson's arrival, the Lakers had suffered three lopsided playoff losses in O'Neal and Bryant's first three years with the franchise, including sweeps in 1998 (Utah) and 1999 (San Antonio). Under Jackson's leadership, the Lakers won three straight championships (2000-02) and in the 2001 playoffs they set a record for best single-season playoff winning percentage (15-1; the 1983 Philadelphia 76ers went 12-1 under a different playoff format). Jackson left the Lakers after the team lost in the 2004 Finals, then he returned for the 2005-06 season. During Jackson's first two years back, Kobe Bryant carried a subpar roster to a pair of first round playoff losses. The Lakers acquired one-time All-Star Pau Gasol early in the 2007-08 season and advanced to the Finals that season before losing to the Boston Celtics. Jackson coached the Lakers to back to back titles in 2009 and 2010 before retiring after the Lakers lost in the second round of the 2011 playoffs.
So, using Lupica's language, Jackson's "genius" not only traveled well but it returned with five championships, resulting in Jackson setting the all-time NBA record for most championships by a head coach (11), breaking the record of nine set by Boston's Red Auerbach.
Auerbach, never a huge fan of Jackson, often dismissed Jackson's accomplishments by noting that Jackson--unlike Auerbach--had never built a team but rather coached teams built by other people (and, in light of Jackson's brief, unsuccessful tenure as President of the New York Knicks, maybe Auerbach had a valid point that he displayed a more versatile set of talents than Jackson did).
In his article, Lupica quoted Auerbach: "You know what genius is? A nice word to say. You want to hear one time when I was a genius? Game seven of the '62 Finals. Us against the Lakers. The score's 100-all, and Frank Selvy takes the last shot. The ball rolls around the rim for about 15 seconds, then falls off. We beat 'em in overtime. Yeah, I was some big genius that year."
Auerbach was being very modest. Yes, there is a certain amount of chance/variance/good fortune involved in being successful but Auerbach did a masterful job of annually preparing his teams to be at their best. Fortune favors the brave--and the well-prepared.
Auerbach mentioned a pet peeve to Lupica that I share about coaches who play to the TV cameras during blowouts: "They could sit down at least once in a while. You turn on the game and these guys are ahead 40 points, and they're still coaching their (butts) off because they know they're on TV. I always get a kick out of that one, too."
Auerbach's points about coaching and "genius" are well taken, and Lupica's contention that among coaches "genius doesn't travel so well" is generally true, but Lupica erred when he chose Jackson as an example. There is a short list of basketball coaches who deserve the "genius" tag, and both Auerbach and Jackson belong on that list.
Garret Kramer's Stillpower Provides a Fresh Perspective About Coaching, Competition and Life
Luke Skywalker: "But how am I to know the good side from the bad?"
Yoda: "You will know...when you are calm, at peace, passive."--Dialogue from "The Empire Strikes Back"
"In war, as in life, there is a wrong way and a right way to compete.
Avoid danger and greed. Embrace concentration and awareness. And when
it becomes inevitable--let go."--Kwai Chang Caine, "Kung Fu: The Legend Continues"
"Colors blind; Sound deafens; Beauty beguiles; the enemy of stillness is
desire. Eliminate desire, and the truth will become clear."--Kwai Chang Caine, "Kung Fu: The Legend Continues"
Champions are often praised for their will to win, their ability to overcome mental, psychological and physical challenges through sheer determination. Garret Kramer, the author of Stillpower: Your Inner Source of Excellence in Sports--and Life, argues that willpower is not nearly as important as "stillpower," which he defines as "The clarity of mind to live with freedom and ease; the inner source of excellence; the opposite of willpower."
Kramer--a former high school and collegiate hockey player who also qualified for four USGA golf championships--suggests that, as paradoxical as this might seem, the harder one tries to be successful the more likely it is that a person will fall short of his expectations and goals; Kramer believes that instead of trying to use willpower to overcome any and all obstacles it is better to clear one's mind and strive for a sense of calm. His mentor Sydney Banks said, "Happiness is only one thought away--but you must find, for yourself, that one thought" (emphasis in the original).
Kramer says that while "pop" psychology contends that "an athlete's life experience, or his performance on the field, is the source of his state of mind" the truth is that "just the opposite is the case--an athlete's state of mind is the source of his life experience, and thus his performance." Kramer declares, "Forcing effort, judging behavior, or trying to mold players potentially thwarts creativity and, ultimately, stifles free will. What all children (and adults, too) are looking for is an unbounded environment where they are permitted to follow their passions, express themselves fully, and compete in the absence of the fear of failure." Kramer says that the best coaching is rooted in love: "love for your players, the game or life itself."
Kramer's ideas and philosophy are very similar to the approach taken by Phil Jackson, who has been called the Zen Master of NBA coaches. Jackson encouraged his players to meditate, to be calm and to find their own solutions on the court; Jackson wanted his players to, in Kramer's words, "follow their passions, express themselves fully, and compete in the absence of the fear of failure." If Jackson's teams were not performing well, he usually did not try to will them to victory by calling a timeout and demanding that his players run a specific play or make a particular adjustment; he had already done his teaching and coaching during practice and he believed that, left to their own devices, his players could solve their problems on their own. This instilled confidence in his players and created a bond among teammates as they worked together toward a common goal. Similarly, Red Auerbach did not just dictate to his players but rather he encouraged them to offer suggestions and ideas. This is also reminiscent of the coaching style of Joe Lapchick, as described by Gus Alfieri; Lapchick coached by feel and he inspired tremendous loyalty from his players because they could sense his love for them and his love for basketball.
Shifting gears from coaching to playing/performing, Kramer says that the key to athletic success--and success in general--is to separate life situations from life. One example of a life situation is a shot that you are about to take; the outcome of that shot--make or miss--should not affect your life because "your life is a constant," Kramer writes. "While most of us think that external circumstances actually happen to us, in truth they don't. They're just happening. All life situations are just happening. Granted, we play a role in the outcome of whatever it is we face, but regardless of our role or whether we're happy or disappointed, the nature of all circumstances or results in life is unbiased. This basic understanding is essential to your quest for success." Kramer uses a dramatic analogy to drive this point home. While working with a pro hockey player who was in a slump, Kramer asked what would happen if he put 10 pucks at center ice and asked the player to hit the first nine into an open net. Naturally, the player confidently answered that he would make all nine shots. Then Kramer asked what would happen on the 10th shot if he put a gun to the player's head and said that he would pull the trigger if the player missed. At first the player replied that he would make the shot but then he admitted that he probably would miss. Kramer concludes, "What does this illustration show? Performing any task or activity while believing the outcome will somehow be indicative of your self-worth (not neutral), or believing the activity can somehow regulate your life (a gun to your head), is a surefire way to lower your consciousness and shrink the perceptual field."
LeBron James' transformation during the 2011-12 season, culminating in his tremendous 2012 postseason performance, was breathtaking to watch. The difference between LeBron James' failure in the 2011 NBA Finals and his success in the 2012 NBA Finals was not that James improved physically or from a skill set standpoint; James changed his mindset, improved his focus and calmed himself down: after the 2012 NBA Finals, James publicly admitted that in 2011 he had been "immature" and he explained how he turned things around: "I just looked at myself in the mirror and said, 'You need to be better, both on and off the floor.'" Instead of trying to prove anything to others or even to himself, James rediscovered the joy of the game and he embraced the responsibility of being the best player on the court without allowing himself to feel so crushed by the pressure of being the best player that he literally would run away from the ball (which is what he did in the 2011 NBA Finals and also in the 2010 playoffs versus the Boston Celtics). Instead of playing like he had a metaphorical gun to his head, James relaxed and this enabled his talents to shine.
Stillpower concludes with an appendix containing a 10 point "game plan for the future." Point number eight powerfully summarizes the book's overall message:
"8. The opportunity always exists to move through any situation successfully, no matter how challenging it might appear.
Everything that occurs in your life is meant to show you the way, not get in your way. When you are thinking clearly and your state of mind is high, life's purpose becomes obvious no matter what you face. Embrace the challenges by keeping this understanding in mind. The obstacles will make sense to you in no time."
This article was originally published in the October 2004 issue of Basketball Digest under the odd title "Intense While it Lasted."
Before the 1956-57 season the Boston Celtics traded two future Hall of Famers--center Ed Macauley and forward Cliff Hagan--to the St. Louis Hawks for the number two overall pick in the draft. Celtics coach Red Auerbach did this in order to select center Bill Russell, who had led the University of San Francisco to consecutive NCAA championships. The pre-Russell Celtics were somewhat like the current Dallas Mavericks--a potent offensive team loaded with All-Stars that had great regular season success but did not defend or rebound well enough to win a championship.
Russell was a tremendous student of the game. He knew all of his opponents' tendencies and he mastered intricacies such as keeping his blocked shots in play to ignite the fast break and having enough awareness of his body position to avoid fouling the offensive player when he went for the block. His only weakness was an unpolished offensive game, but Auerbach told Russell that he would never bring up Russell’s scoring average in contract negotiations.
Russell joined the Celtics in December 1956 after leading the U.S. basketball team to the gold medal in the Olympic Games. Russell's defense and rebounding turbocharged the Celtics' fast break, masterfully choreographed by point guard Bob Cousy, a perennial All-Star who won the 1956-57 NBA MVP. Indiana Pacers' broadcaster Bobby "Slick" Leonard, who played against Russell as a member of the Minneapolis (later Los Angeles) Lakers before coaching the Pacers to three ABA titles, says that Russell's Celtics had the best fast break ever, explaining that the Celtics' fast break was unique because of how perfectly suited the entire roster was to play that style: "Red knew that he had the boards because of Russell, but he had Cousy who was a master on the fast break. You let him get that outlet pass and get the ball in the middle and he could do wonders with it. They had runners--Tommy Heinsohn was a great runner. The first 'sixth man' in the NBA was Frank Ramsey. The most underrated guard I ever played against was probably Sam Jones. This guy could do it all--defend, score and he was a money player."
The Celtics and Hawks rivalry is special because after the big trade the teams met in four of the next five NBA Finals. Russell led the Celtics to 11 titles in his 13 seasons but the Hawks posed a significant challenge to Boston’s nascent dynasty, defeating Boston once and twice extending the Celtics to seven games. Hawks' coach Alex Hannum later coached the only other team that defeated Russell’s Celtics in a playoff series--the Wilt Chamberlain led 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers.
In 1956-57 the Celtics escaped with a 125-123 game seven Finals triumph over St. Louis. Hawks' star forward Bob Pettit, the NBA's first regular season MVP (1955-56), had 39 points but missed a potential game tying shot at the buzzer after a length of the court pass by player-coach Hannum. Russell finished with 19 points and 32 rebounds, while fellow rookie Heinsohn had 37 points and 23 rebounds.
Russell sprained his ankle in game three of the 1958 Finals and the Hawks won 111-108 to take a 2-1 lead. Russell sat out games four and five, which the teams split. He was immobile and ineffective in 20 minutes of game six action and Pettit scored 50 points to lead the Hawks to a 110-109 victory; he scored 19 of the Hawks' last 21 points. Pettit's performance tied Cousy's single game playoff scoring record set in 1953, but Cousy's mark happened in a four overtime game. Auerbach refused to blame the loss on Russell's injury: "You can always look for excuses. We just got beat."
In 1958-59, rookie Elgin Baylor led his 33-39 Minneapolis Lakers to a 4-2 upset of the 49-23 Hawks in the Western Division Finals, only to be swept by Boston in the Finals. Boston blitzed through the 1959-60 regular season with a 59-16 record, but St. Louis extended the Celtics to seven games in the Finals before bowing 122-103. Russell's game seven line read 22 points, 35 rebounds and four assists.
In the 1961 Finals Boston triumphed 4-1 over the Hawks in the only lopsided playoff matchup between the teams. The teams never met again in the Finals, primarily because of the emergence of a new "classic confrontation" that would eventually occur more frequently than any other Finals pairing--Celtics versus Lakers.
Julius Erving on the Art of Knowing When to Dunk--And When Not to Dunk
Although Julius "Dr. J" Erving is one of the most flamboyant and exciting basketball players ever, his game was very fundamentally sound. As he often put it, he dunked primarily for the "result, not the effect"; for Erving, the dunk was the highest percentage shot available. On page 120 of the excellent book Stuff Good Players Should Know, Dick DeVenzio wrote (emphasis in the original):
It may surprise you to learn that good players don't strive for great plays. Great plays come to them occasionally, but only in the process of concentrating on their job, trying to do all the little things right. Take Dr. J for example. He makes a lot of great plays. But his value, even more important to his team than all those spectacular dunks, is that he doesn't miss many dunks. He is consistent. On the plays where a spectacular dunk has a good chance of missing, Dr. J "happens" not to try it at all. "Ah," say the fans, "he should've dunked that one." But he doesn't dunk every chance he gets. He dunks the ones he can dunk, and he doesn't attempt the ones he can not. If it's 50-50, he doesn't try it. Good players don't like those odds. Good players are not gamblers, they are performers. That is why great plays are not what makes an outstanding player. It is knowing limitations. A good player knows that he doesn't need a slam dunk in the final seconds to be credited with winning the big game. If he can stop his man from scoring and go down the other end and get a good shot, he can win the game just as well--and more often.
When I interviewed Erving a few years ago, I told him about that passage and asked him what he thought about it. Here is his reply:
Erving: "My thoughts are, if you haven’t perfected it, then you shouldn’t be trying it in a game. Good defense forces an offensive player to maybe go outside of their capability a little bit and experiment, but a one-on-none breakaway, trying to do a blindfold or go between the legs—you’ve got to get the two points. You have to go down and get the two points. You have to understand what the priority is. Trying to make the highlight films--that gets into guys like Rodman diving eight rows into the stands just to get on the highlights. That became sort of his thing. There is an identity issue and players are doing more things to try to get recognition outside of sticking with the game plan and sticking with the abilities they are blessed with and the skill training that they put a lot of hours into perfecting. Coaches have their hands tied in terms of what to do. Do I take the guy, bring him over and sit him down or just let him play through it? Do I talk to him in private after the game? I remember Billy Cunningham—you know, Steve Smith used to have this thing, bouncing the ball off the backboard and dunking it. So they’re up like 30 points in a game and he bounces the ball off the backboard and catches it and dunks it on a one-on-none fast break. You know, guys in my generation used to think that was just trying to embarrass the other team and that there shouldn’t be a place for that in professional basketball."
Friedman: "Is that when Smith was with the Miami Heat?"
Erving: "Yes and Billy was in the front office. And right after he (Cunningham) told him (not to do it), he (Smith) did it in the next game."
Friedman: "Sometimes they don’t listen. You tell them, but they don’t listen, right?"
Erving: “He was like, ‘Well, we’re a different generation. In this generation, this is what we do.’ And I guess maybe to a degree you have to accept some of that. There are certain things in the game that do need to be preserved. Putting your second team in when you’re up a lot of points is really what you should do. I mean, those guys want to play, too. To just run it up to 125 so the crowd can get hamburgers or whatever, that’s not good."
Friedman: "That leads me right into my next question when you’re talking about just playing for a stat--"
Erving: "Yeah, putting a guy back in the game so he can get an assist for a triple double or whatever, that’s crass. It’s just crass."
In the 1970s and 1980s, Hall of Famer Red Auerbach and some of the biggest NBA stars filmed a number of instructional features that aired during NBA telecasts. These classic "Red on Roundball" videos are still fun and educational decades after they were first made. Here is a "Round on Roundball" segment during which Erving talks about the slam dunk:
There is a tendency among those who don't understand the NBA game very well to dismiss the importance of coaching. Phil Jackson is sometimes derided for winning titles with the Hall of Fame caliber duos of Michael Jordan-Scottie Pippen and Shaquille O'Neal-Kobe Bryant but leadership, strategy and motivation are important elements for team success. Keep in mind that in order to win a championship it is vital not just to get the maximum out of the team's stars but also to squeeze as much productivity as possible out of the other players on the roster. While Jackson's star players could undoubtedly have had great individual statistical success playing for any NBA team, Jackson came up with offensive and defensive plans that made sure that his stars did not have to carry all of the burden by themselves.
Before Jackson took over in Chicago, many people thought that Jordan was too focused on his own scoring exploits to lead a team to a championship. Before Jackson took over in Los Angeles, O'Neal had a history of not working hard on defense and of getting swept out of the playoffs. Jackson did not just make those teams a little bit better; he turned them into powerhouses: the 1996 Bulls set the all-time record for regular season wins (72) and the 2001 Lakers set the all-time record for playoff winning percentage (15-1).
Of course, in this year's Finals Jackson's Lakers lost to Doc Rivers' Celtics. Just last season many people were saying that Rivers is a terrible coach and even now there are people who act like Rivers was some kind of accidental tourist along for the ride during the Celtics' championship run--but accidents don't last for 82 regular season games and four playoff series. Rivers is a very good coach. As a former All-Star guard he knows the game and he also has a good rapport with his players, which is very important. After the Celtics came back from 24 points down to win game four of the Finals--the turning point of the series--Kevin Garnett spoke about Rivers' leadership:
Doc is not afraid to tell us when we're messing up. I've been around for a while and I've seen some coaches sort of say the 'right thing.' He gives it to you straight, lets us know and he's probably one of the best motivators I've been around in a while. He gives up hope through his words and we believe it. We go out and try to do what is asked of us. He gave us confidence and just told us, 'Cut it to 10, cut it to 7, get it to 3.' We just continued to fight.
Garnett spent his whole career in Minnesota before joining the Celtics this season and while I suppose it is possible that the "some coaches" remark could have been in reference to Bill Blair's brief tenure or Kevin McHale's interim stint on the bench or the short reigns of Dwane Casey and Randy Wittman, I suspect that Garnett was referring to Flip Saunders. Saunders is a good NBA coach who designs some of the best out of bounds plays in the league. However, I see no evidence that he is the kind of coach who can lead a team to a championship. He inherited a championship team in Detroit and the Pistons spun their wheels for three years until Joe Dumars canned Saunders in favor of assistant coach Michael Curry. Check out what Curry recently told Jim Rome:
Give the Celtics a lot of credit. They played extremely well. They played extremely well the entire season. We have to figure out a way and we have to get better at playing harder, more focused and more consistent throughout the year--taking care of a lot of the little things as far as taking care of our bodies and little things out on the court so that when we do get into situations in which we are under duress when we are playing a team that is just as good or better then we can perform at a high level and hopefully we can take care of those situations when we get back to the Eastern Conference Finals again.
Rome asked Curry if the Celtics were better than the Pistons or just more focused and Curry offered a very telling reply:
I think that having focus is part of being the better team. Throughout the regular season the Celtics have shown that they were the best team in the league. They played with the focus, with the understanding and the desire of the importance of each game. They've done a tremendous job. Give the coaching staff credit, give the players credit--they've done a tremendous job. At the end of the season, everyone says that they want to win a championship but you want to be in a position where you feel you deserve a chance to win it because you've outworked everybody that you're playing against. We did not outwork them.
Rome asked Curry about the Pistons' reputation for acting as though they can "turn it on and off." Curry plans to change that:
That's a label I do not like and we're going to get rid of that label as far as the team turning it on and off...We're going to do it the championship way...We're going to have more accountability and do the little things to make sure that we can be a more consistent team. That starts with the way we practice every day, the way we prepare for games every day and the way we approach games during the regular season, understanding that if we want to be there in the end it will be because of all the work we have done along the way.
Basically, in those brief replies Curry summarized every criticism that I have had about the Pistons under Saunders' regime--and since Curry was on Saunders' staff he obviously knows exactly what was going on behind the scenes on a day to day basis. Clearly, Curry believes that the Pistons were taking shortcuts in their preparation and were not as focused as the Celtics were. Casual fans have the mistaken belief that the most important coaching takes place during games but the reality is that the most important coaching takes place during practices and in the interactions that take place before the game. It is the coach's job to prepare the players as well as possible and then it is the players' job to execute. Some of the greatest coaches of all-time--Jackson and John Wooden, to name just two--are renowned for having calm, placid demeanors during games. That is because they know that the most important work is done before the game and they were not interested in grandstanding for the TV cameras. Do you know why Red Auerbach started lighting victory cigars? He once explained that he never understood why other coaches were jumping up and down and making spectacles of themselves on the sidelines, particularly if one team had a big lead with very little time left; smoking the cigar was his way of saying that the game is over and there is nothing more that he needs to do.
Curry has no track record as an NBA head coach, so I don't know whether or not he will be able to implement the program he described to Rome--but Jackson and Pat Riley had no prior NBA head coaching experience when they took over in Chicago and L.A. respectively but their focus on doing things "the championship way"--as Curry called it--paid off quickly.
"You handle animals. You deal with people"--Red Auerbach's description of his interactions with his players.
Paul Dalessio of Fleishman-Hillard passed along a video clip tribute to Celtics' patriarch Red Auerbach:
Red Auerbach coached the Celtics to nine championships (1957, 1959-66) and posted a 938-479 (.662) regular season record and a 99-69 (.589) playoff record. For many years, he held the records for most regular season wins and most playoff wins. Thanks to Boston's Finals victory this season, he remains tied with Phil Jackson for the most championships won by an NBA coach. Auerbach engineered the trade that brought Bill Russell to the Celtics, a move that formed the cornerstone for 11 championship teams. Auerbach also played a role in building the teams that won the 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984 and 1986 titles. Although not directly involved in putting together the 2008 championship squad, he certainly influenced the thinking and basketball philosophy of current Celtics President Danny Ainge, a player who Auerbach acquired in the early 80s and who was a member of the 1984 and 1986 champions.
"A work of art contains its verification in itself: artificial, strained concepts do not withstand the test of being turned into images; they fall to pieces, turn out to be sickly and pale, convince no one. Works which draw on truth and present it to us in live and concentrated form grip us, compellingly involve us, and no one ever, not even ages hence, will come forth to refute them."--Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Nobel Lecture)
"The most 'popular,' the most 'successful' writers among us (for a brief period, at least) are, 99 times out of a hundred, persons of mere effrontery--in a word, busy-bodies, toadies, quacks."--Edgar Allan Poe
"In chess what counts is what you know, not whom you know. It's the way life is supposed to be, democratic and just."--Grandmaster Larry Evans
"It's not nuclear physics. You always remember that. But if you write about sports long enough, you're constantly coming back to the point that something buoys people; something makes you feel better for having been there. Something of value is at work there...Something is hallowed here. I think that something is excellence."--Tom Callahan
