Jerry West Has Some Serious Doubts About Phil Jackson

http://nypost.com/2015/06/08/jerry-west-has-some-serious-doubts-about-phil-jackson/







OAKLAND – NBA legend Jerry West, a Warriors board member/consultant, tossed a couple of subtle digs at Knicks president Phil Jackson on Sunday.

West pointed out Jackson’s trades have boosted two other clubs, said it will be easier for Pat Riley to turn around the Heat than Jackson the Knicks and wondered if the Zen Master will attract free agents.
“It’s a little easier for Pat,’’ West said in an interview on Sirius XM Bleacher Report Radio’s “NBA Sunday Tip” co-hosted by Howard Beck and Ethan Skolnick.

“He’s had a lot more experience in both sides in coaching and now in the front office. With Phil, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens back there. They didn’t have the kind of year I’m sure they wanted to have. Everyone in the league feels like they made two trades that made helped Cleveland tremendously and one that helped Dallas this year.’’

West worked with Jackson with the Lakers, but had a well-documented cool relationship. He made a reference to Jackson’s $60 million contract and past deals and noted the teams with which he won titles had “enormous talent.’’ West said the Knicks need new blood and admitted it’s no guarantee Jackson will hit paydirt with his $27 million of cap space.

“He wants to have a team that will have his identity on it,’’ West said. “A lot of people want to be critical. I wouldn’t be so critical because they need a fresh infusion of talent there and also people that will be able to play the way they want to play.

“Phil was fortunate. He’s made a lot of money in this league. Even though he’s making a lot of money today, he wants to win. He’s a competitor. It will remain to be seen whether they’ll be able to turn their fortunes around. They have a lot of money to spend on free agents, but a lot of times people don’t want to play certain places for different reasons.’’
West added Jackson has never faced this situation despite winning 11 coaching titles.

“What he’s done there would be easy to criticize,’’ West said. “He understood that team would be pretty good, but not at the level he’s won. If you’re not successful in getting free agents it will set their progress back. It’s a completely different challenge for him. He’s had teams with enormous talent. He’s coached them brilliantly and won championships, but it’s a different challenge for him.’’
The Post reported Friday that West went to a private workout session of projected top-5 pick Emmanuel Mudiay in Los Angeles last week. West told The Post Sunday at Oracle Arena he’s not allowed to discuss him but offered, “he’s a very nice kid and very talented, very talented.’’



bob
MY NOTE:  Welcome to the club, Jerry, welcome to the club.


.

And the gulf in vision and talent between Red and The Great Pretender continues to widen.

Sam

I think the title of this story is quite sensationalized, compared to what West's comments actually were. 
Is part of this sour grapes that Phil traded Shumpert and JR Smith to Cleveland since West is now part of the Warriors organization?
What was the Dallas trade Jerry referenced? Amare wasn't traded to Dallas AND Dallas had a worse record after they signed Amare. 
Maybe people should give Phil a little time to build a team. He had no flexibility last summer because NY was paying $32m to Stoudemire and Bargnani. Phil inherited a mess of a roster. 

A gulf between in vision and talent? Yeah ok. 
I don't mind having this conversation at all....
Phil was never a GM before NY. 
He never had a chance to build a team. 
He was just the most successful coach in NBA history.

Can you spell dilettante?  Oh, he inherited a mess of a roster?  Poor baby.  "He never had a chance to build a team?"  Poor baby.  He was just the coaching recipient of the most human gifts in NBA history; and, to his credit, he was selective enough to avoid other coaching situations.

Well, now he has a chance to build a team.

Always enthused about having this conversation.

Sam

Phil Jackson may prove himself to have been much more than a specialist (head coach) than he is a great overall basketball mind. For one, making the Knicks run the triangle offense when Phil is not the head coach is very questionable in my eyes. How many players want to stand accountable to such a demanding offense that is only being run by a 'disciple'?

This specialization is not uncommon in sports. Lots of folks are really good at one aspect and probably not so good at all aspects.

Michael Jordan is another example as he was a great player but has not yet shown an ability to build a great (even good) team.

I have to admit that not seeing Jackson or Jordan succeed at their 'second jobs' does leave me feeling any sympathy for either one of them.

"What was the Dallas trade Jerry referenced?"

I think West was referring to Phil sending Tyson Chandler back to Dallas and signing Samuel Dalembert, a move that even Phil later said was a mistake.

I don't get into these Phil vs Red comparisons as coaches since the eras were so different. Suffice it to say that if we had a time machine and they switched eras both would have to change their approaches.

But being intelligent, driven men I think that both could adapt to their new circumstances.

"What was the Dallas trade Jerry referenced?"

I think West was referring to Phil sending Tyson Chandler back to Dallas and signing Samuel Dalembert, a move that even Phil later said was a mistake.

I don't get into these Phil vs Red comparisons as coaches since the eras were so different. Suffice it to say that if we had a time machine and they switched eras both would have to change their approaches.

But being intelligent, driven men I think that both could adapt to their new circumstances.

Sloopjohnb wrote:"What was the Dallas trade Jerry referenced?"

I think West was referring to Phil sending Tyson Chandler back to Dallas and signing Samuel Dalembert, a move that even Phil later said was a mistake.

I don't get into these Phil vs Red comparisons as coaches since the eras were so different.  Suffice it to say that if we had a time machine and they switched eras both would have to change their approaches.

But being intelligent, driven men I think that both could adapt to their new circumstances.

sloop,

I don't get into these Phil vs Red comparisons as coaches since the eras were so different.  Suffice it to say that if we had a time machine and they switched eras both would have to change their approaches.

I agree. It's a bad idea to compare eras in anything. You need to do what works now. What worked in the past may or may not be relevant nor successful today.

Having said that, rebuilding is rebuilding and Danny had to do it, Riley had to do it in Miami and LA and Pop has had to do it. They way they went about it might be very different from how either Red (Auerbach or Holzman) would have done it but that's the irrelevant part. Danny competed against Riley and Pop to do it and not "the Reds", as Phil now has to compete against Danny and his contemporaries and not against "the Reds".


bob


.

Phil Jackson has been terrible, his coaches suck, look how much the Cavs staff and Lebron have gotten out of Smith and Shumpert, its obvious they were coached WRONG in NY. Actually Pop has been incredible in building a team around one HoF player for such long a run, something Danny and no one else could figure out....and just like Sam is always going to outwork everyone to make sure no one overlooks his beloved 60's Celtics, I'll always call out Ainge for the most idiotic trade in Celtic history when Pierce and KG still had ALOT left and defend my role players like Perk.

Dbrown,

And it has nothing to do with eras.  A dodge is a dodge, whatever the era.

Sam

"He was just the most successful coach in NBA history."

Define success.

Successful in being the giftee of the first part, maybe?

Sam

Phil won the NBA lottery twice, once by inheriting the MJ Bulls and next by winning the Shaq/Kobe led Lakers job.

Red, conversely, inherited bupkis.

worcester wrote:"He was just the most successful coach in NBA history."

Define success.

Championships. 
Winning percentage.

F

worcester wrote:Phil won the NBA lottery twice, once by inheriting the MJ Bulls and next by winning the Shaq/Kobe led Lakers job.

Red, conversely, inherited bupkis.

Boston won the championship two out of the next three years after Red stopped coaching. 
It doesn't seem like the team missed Red when he left coaching.

TJ, you usually make such sense even when I don't agree with you.  That is definitely the most ludicrous remark I've ever seen you make.

Here, count along with me.  One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, thud!  What was that?  The first year without Red at the helm was a thud?  Their new coach (make that player coach) had optimal motivation to prevail, and yet the most prolific winner in history couldn't pull off following Red's tenure as a winner.  The fact that the Celtics then went on to crush Philly and L.A. for two more years bears testimony to the fact that Red's influence was still very much present because he hadn't bailed on the Celtics completely when he retired as coach.

At the first sign that Phil was losing the core of the gift he had received in Chicago, he bailed to his next gift in L.A rather than seizing the opportunity to prove he could lead a Chicago team to greatness rather than nudging them over the top they already represented.  He then yo-yoed in and out of the Lakers' coaching job depending on (1) how strong a team he was likely to be gifted with in any given year or (2) whether he might have had to confront personality problems had he stayed.  (Poor baby.)  In 2010-11, when the Lakers failed to win the championship for the first time in four years despite playing .695 ball, he bailed again.

Phil's is arguably the most classic case of front-runnerism in league coaching history.

Sam

Sam, 

It's truly very hard for many of us here to have a reasonable conversation with you about anything that happened with the Celtics teams or the NBA in the 50's and 60's. 

Red did not win as many championships as Phil and Phil won a higher percentage of his games. How come you always default to Championships unless it's in this conversation?

What I have read about Phil and from Phil has convinced me that he is an extremely smart man along with being an all-time great head coach. Phil coached a lot of great players and so did Red. I'm not sure who coached more hall of famers or future hall of farmers, but if I am guessing, I would say it is Red.

Didn't realize how many times Phil bailed, well he was good at selling himself and he did deliver, guess he felt he earned being a pampered situation picker. I always thought as good as he was, he was overated, just like Doc had Thibs to coach the defense, he had I forget his name, but a great assistant to implement the Triangle.

....Tex Winter

I could see Tex implementing and coaching the offense, and then Phil says and if they stop this or counter that....get the ball to Michael, get the ball to Kobe.

then he's gonna hit them with a Zen feel good saying/story.

me I'd rather hear or play for a Brooklyn bred/cigar smoking ref bashing coach like Red, but hey thats me....

Jackson coached very talented teams but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great coach.

The Lakers, before Jackson became coach, were about to set some kind of unofficial record for supreme under achievmnent. With Shaq, Kobe, Fisher, Harper, Glen Rice, Robert Horry and other good players, LA lost 4-1 to the Jazz in '97; 4-0 to the Jazz in '98; and, 4-0 to the Spurs in '99. Never has so little come from so much.

Jackson became coach and LA won three straight titles.

You think it was just luck or a coincidence?

When Jordan did his baseball thing, the Bulls won 55 games. Not bad after losing the best player of his generation.

You may believe Auerbach was the greatest ever but I don't think you can denigrate what Jackson did.

Coaching is a lot more than knowledge about the game. Jackson's assistant who Cowens can't recall the name of was HOF'er Tex Winter. No one doubts his bona fides as far as the triangle offense goes. Winter coached the Rockets in the early 70's and was a total bust.

Jackson was able to get the best out of great players. This was no mean feat as evidenced by what his predecessors did in LA.

TJ,

Fortunately, there seems to be an easy way to handle any such difficulty.  Just ignore the points I make and/or divert the conversation.  Happens all the time.

Actually, I don't "always default to championships" in discussing the past.  I often make personal observations of how the game was played.  I often talk about chemistry.  I often talk about shared instinct.  I often talk about persistence and refusal to lose.  I talk about a lot of things that are germane to any given situation.  But one thing I ALWAYS try to do is to address points made by others.

Which of my points did you address?

• Missing Red so much that the Celtics failed to win a championship for the first year in nine after he retired?  (Now, there's a situation in which I mentioned a championship as a negative thing regarding the Celtics.  Sort of takes the punch out of that "default" thing, huh?)

• The fact that Red didn't desert the Celtics after retiring and very likely had a lot of involvement when they beat their two strongest rivals for championships the following two seasons?  (Hey, there's another mention of championships.)

• The fact that Phil bailed on Chicago as soon as his golden egg disappeared?

• The fact that Phil yo-yoed with L.A. based on personal convenience rather than a commitment to the team?

• The likelihood that Phil's is arguably the most classic case of front-runnerism in NBA history?

Nope, I don't note responses to any of those five points in your ensuing comments.  I was so disappointed in the same phenomenon (not singling you out) in the earlier discussion on the Celtics of the 50s and 60s that I made a similar list of completely disregarded points I had made.  It's huge!

You may feel many of my comments unreasonable, but I try to support each one with my attempt at evidence.  One of them was an answer to your minute-by-minute video commentary that you said you'd be glad to review if anyone had a comeback.  So I came back with a similar minute-by-minute video commentary, but somehow, I must have missed your promised review.  All I got (and not from you) was some laughable feedback on the value of crouching while skipping backward on full-court shadowing.

To comment on your points in your most recent post (as I always try to do):

• I've never denied that Phil won one more championship than Red did.  But I have made what I feel is the related remark that Phil was handed a lot of those championships via selective relationships.  Same for winning percentage, although I don't believe I've happened to mention how much easier it is to win a lot of games when the quality of "have not" teams is diluted.

• I agree that Phil was a smart coach—certainly smart enough to ally himself selectively with situations that had exceptional winning potential.

• I agree that Phil coached a lot of great players as did Red.  One difference is that Red developed a lot of his great players while Phil inherited a lot of his.

• Like you, I don't know for sure who coached more hall-of-famers, but I also assume it was Red.  I don't know whether you were trying to make a point with that comment, but I do know that Red had a history of acquiring players who were not considered luminaries or were subject to major questions at time of their acquisition (e.g., Sam, K.C., Heinsohn, Cousy, Havlicek, Ramsey, Parish, D.J., Jo Jo, and arguably Russell), and helping to make it possible for them to carve out hall-of-fame careers.

I'm sorry if you consider me a pit bull (my words) about the Russell Celtics.  I've definitely had occasion to voice my candid observations about their deficiencies, including lack of size.  But, frankly, they just didn't have a lot of deficiencies for the times.  I didn't come to think they were so great because I loved them; I grew to love them because they were so great.

Those who attempt to fabricate deficiencies about older teams generally use today's standards in evaluating something that happened half a century ago.  Of all the times I've talked about the importance of temporal context, I don't believe I've ever received a response representing either agreement or disagreement about that factor.  People just ignore those comments and keep on using today's game and tmes as a yardstick for the proficiency of the old game.

For instance, players in the Russell era didn't guard as close as today because the real danger was having one's opponent blow by and score on a high-percentage two-point shot.  It was considered prudent to risk having the opponent attempt a much lower-percentage long shot, since it would count for only two points as well.  But I don't recall receiving any feedback on that point either—just more comments that the guarding should have been closer because it would be closer today.

So I'm sorry if I'm what you would call "unreasonable" about the old Celtics.  I do happen to believe I know what I'm talking about in discussing that era; I don't like revisionist history; I'm naturally persistent as a result; and I enjoy being challenged fairly on those or any other points because it forces me to add perspective to my thinking.  But to be accused (not by you) of gaining conversational leverage by "outworking" other people is actually insulting because it implies that I use diligence as a substitute for substance.  I can't help it if some of my points may appear difficult to refute.  Perhaps there's a reason for that.  And, by the way, I almost never initiate discussions about the Celtics of the 50s and 50s because I've been accused falsely of doing too much of it.  In this thread, I'm responding to what someone else wrote.  When someone found a way to turn the playoff thread into a shot at 50s and 60s basketball, I responded.

There's no question that, during the earlier 50s/60s debate, having so many of my points simply ignored rather than being addressed (pro or con) was a low point for me on this board.  I decided to let it go because I'd much rather focus on what I hope lies ahead for the Celtics (including, ideally, rematches with the Lakers in title series).  So I'll mention it just this once (since the subject was initiated by someone else) and get on with posting life.

For one thing, I'll welcome comments of people who watched the Warriors-Cavs game last night.  I had great difficulty in finding game accounts other than the box score, despite the fact that I looked well into the evening.  I believe I saw that Kerr fingered Iguodala as the team's best player in the series, and Iggy is apparently proving that really good defense (1) can at least slow down really good offense under the right circumstances and (2) need not sap one's own offensive productivity in the process.  I'm sure it can't hurt the Warriors' cause that Lebron is the one truly potent offensive threat remaining for the Cavs.  I'm always happy when J.R. soils the bed.

Sam

Sloop, I don’t believe anyone’s saying that Phil Jackson wasn’t a very good coach.  Perhaps the smartest coaching move he ever made was keeping Tex Winter as a long-time assistant.
 
I’ve just seen no series of tests to which Phil was put (as opposed to being in the right places at the right times, personnel-wise) that marks him as the greatest coach of all-time.  Frankly, I believe that Pop may have proven, over a wider set of real challenges than Phil endured, that he (Pop) arguably deserves more consideration than Phil is in the “greatest ever coach” conversation.  When Pop joined the Spurs, he wasn’t lured by the presence of Tim Duncan, who didn’t come along until the following season.  In the decade and a half since Tim’s arrival, Pop’s teams have never finished at lower than .610 in any season.  Phil can’t match the consistency of that streak, although Phil’s teams did win 7 championships to Pop’s 4 in the years when their coaching years overlapped.
 
Yes, the Lakers had failed to win the championship three years in a row when Phil first joined them.  But his 1999 transition from the then-Jordanless Bulls to the Lakers occurred at just the time when Kobe Bryant had proven to be a rising star in joining Shaq as one of the most formidable inside-outside twosomes in NBA history.  Phil smartly took advantage of that opportunity.  If you want to pinpoint something at which Phil was the “greatest,” he could have been the greatest opportunist in NBA history.
 
Sam

sam wrote:TJ,

Fortunately, there seems to be an easy way to handle any such difficulty.  Just ignore the points I make and/or divert the conversation.  Happens all the time.

Actually, I don't "always default to championships" in discussing the past.  I often make personal observations of how the game was played.  I often talk about chemistry.  I often talk about shared instinct.  I often talk about persistence and refusal to lose.  I talk about a lot of things that are germane to any given situation.  But one thing I ALWAYS try to do is to address points made by others.

Which of my points did you address?

• Missing Red so much that the Celtics failed to win a championship for the first year in nine after he retired?  (Now, there's a situation in which I mentioned a championship as a negative thing regarding the Celtics.  Sort of takes the punch out of that "default" thing, huh?)

• The fact that Red didn't desert the Celtics after retiring and very likely had a lot of involvement when they beat their two strongest rivals for championships the following two seasons?  (Hey, there's another mention of championships.)

• The fact that Phil bailed on Chicago as soon as his golden egg disappeared?

• The fact that Phil yo-yoed with L.A. based on personal convenience rather than a commitment to the team?

• The likelihood that Phil's is arguably the most classic case of front-runnerism in NBA history?

Nope, I don't note responses to any of those five points in your ensuing comments.  I was so disappointed in the same phenomenon (not singling you out) in the earlier discussion on the Celtics of the 50s and 60s that I made a similar list of completely disregarded points I had made.  It's huge!

You may feel many of my comments unreasonable, but I try to support each one with my attempt at evidence.  One of them was an answer to your minute-by-minute video commentary that you said you'd be glad to review if anyone had a comeback.  So I came back with a similar minute-by-minute video commentary, but somehow, I must have missed your promised review.  All I got (and not from you) was some laughable feedback on the value of crouching while skipping backward on full-court shadowing.

To comment on your points in your most recent post (as I always try to do):

• I've never denied that Phil won one more championship than Red did.  But I have made what I feel is the related remark that Phil was handed a lot of those championships via selective relationships.  Same for winning percentage, although I don't believe I've happened to mention how much easier it is to win a lot of games when the quality of "have not" teams is diluted.

• I agree that Phil was a smart coach—certainly smart enough to ally himself selectively with situations that had exceptional winning potential.

• I agree that Phil coached a lot of great players as did Red.  One difference is that Red developed a lot of his great players while Phil inherited a lot of his.

• Like you, I don't know for sure who coached more hall-of-famers, but I also assume it was Red.  I don't know whether you were trying to make a point with that comment, but I do know that Red had a history of acquiring players who were not considered luminaries or were subject to major questions at time of their acquisition (e.g., Sam, K.C., Heinsohn, Cousy, Havlicek, Ramsey, Parish, D.J., Jo Jo, and arguably Russell), and helping to make it possible for them to carve out hall-of-fame careers.

I'm sorry if you consider me a pit bull (my words) about the Russell Celtics.  I've definitely had occasion to voice my candid observations about their deficiencies, including lack of size.  But, frankly, they just didn't have a lot of deficiencies for the times.  I didn't come to think they were so great because I loved them; I grew to love them because they were so great.

Those who attempt to fabricate deficiencies about older teams generally use today's standards in evaluating something that happened half a century ago.  Of all the times I've talked about the importance of temporal context, I don't believe I've ever received a response representing either agreement or disagreement about that factor.  People just ignore those comments and keep on using today's game and tmes as a yardstick for the proficiency of the old game.

For instance, players in the Russell era didn't guard as close as today because the real danger was having one's opponent blow by and score on a high-percentage two-point shot.  It was considered prudent to risk having the opponent attempt a much lower-percentage long shot, since it would count for only two points as well.  But I don't recall receiving any feedback on that point either—just more comments that the guarding should have been closer because it would be closer today.

So I'm sorry if I'm what you would call "unreasonable" about the old Celtics.  I do happen to believe I know what I'm talking about in discussing that era; I don't like revisionist history; I'm naturally persistent as a result; and I enjoy being challenged fairly on those or any other points because it forces me to add perspective to my thinking.  But to be accused (not by you) of gaining conversational leverage by "outworking" other people is actually insulting because it implies that I use diligence as a substitute for substance.  I can't help it if some of my points may appear difficult to refute.  Perhaps there's a reason for that.  And, by the way, I almost never initiate discussions about the Celtics of the 50s and 50s because I've been accused falsely of doing too much of it.  In this thread, I'm responding to what someone else wrote.  When someone found a way to turn the playoff thread into a shot at 50s and 60s basketball, I responded.

There's no question that, during the earlier 50s/60s debate, having so many of my points simply ignored rather than being addressed (pro or con) was a low point for me on this board.  I decided to let it go because I'd much rather focus on what I hope lies ahead for the Celtics (including, ideally, rematches with the Lakers in title series).  So I'll mention it just this once (since the subject was initiated by someone else) and get on with posting life.

For one thing, I'll welcome comments of people who watched the Warriors-Cavs game last night.  I had great difficulty in finding game accounts other than the box score, despite the fact that I looked well into the evening.  I believe I saw that Kerr fingered Iguodala as the team's best player in the series, and Iggy is apparently proving that really good defense (1) can at least slow down really good offense under the right circumstances and (2) need not sap one's own offensive productivity in the process.  I'm sure it can't hurt the Warriors' cause that Lebron is the one truly potent offensive threat remaining for the Cavs.  I'm always happy when J.R. soils the bed.

Sam

Sam,

I do not normally ignore points or divert a conversation.
I do appreciate the time and effort that you and others put into their posts.
I do get tired of having a long and drawn out conversation with someone if I feel they are being inflexible.
I rarely feel that way about you, except for the discussions on the 50's and 60's.
I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I am 45 years old and see many things differently than you do.

I absolutely do not believe that players from the 50's and 60's played hands off defense because they were afraid the offensive player was going to blow by them.
I have yet so see one player in a video who had significant acceleration and speed like a Westbrook, Wall, Rose or Damian Lillard or almost any guard in today's game.
I saw players playing defense like in the movie Hoosiers and I saw many un-athletic guys shooting open set shots.
My 20 year old son and I watch some of the old videos and he cannot believe how soft the NBA players were back then. It is hard for us to not laugh at how they played.
Anyway, I'm getting tired of that subject...

Phil was not handed anything.
Yes, he coached many talented teams.
Yes, he put himself in a position to be a successful coach.
He also had to coach in a time where it is much harder to manage and maintain player relationships.
Red didn't have to deal with free agency, multi million dollar contracts, salary cap, players being their own corporation, huge egos, social media and so many other things that take a coaches time and focus away from coaching.

As for last nights game, it's hard to win a game when a team (Cavs) shoot 33% from the field and 15% from the 3 point line.
The Cavs bench scored a total of 7 points on 2-17 shooting, most of those misses were from JR Smith.
The Cavs have done a great job to be 2 to 2 in the series.
It will be hard for them to win 2 out of the next 3 games.

tjmakz wrote:

sam wrote:TJ,

Fortunately, there seems to be an easy way to handle any such difficulty.  Just ignore the points I make and/or divert the conversation.  Happens all the time.

Actually, I don't "always default to championships" in discussing the past.  I often make personal observations of how the game was played.  I often talk about chemistry.  I often talk about shared instinct.  I often talk about persistence and refusal to lose.  I talk about a lot of things that are germane to any given situation.  But one thing I ALWAYS try to do is to address points made by others.

Which of my points did you address?

• Missing Red so much that the Celtics failed to win a championship for the first year in nine after he retired?  (Now, there's a situation in which I mentioned a championship as a negative thing regarding the Celtics.  Sort of takes the punch out of that "default" thing, huh?)

• The fact that Red didn't desert the Celtics after retiring and very likely had a lot of involvement when they beat their two strongest rivals for championships the following two seasons?  (Hey, there's another mention of championships.)

• The fact that Phil bailed on Chicago as soon as his golden egg disappeared?

• The fact that Phil yo-yoed with L.A. based on personal convenience rather than a commitment to the team?

• The likelihood that Phil's is arguably the most classic case of front-runnerism in NBA history?

Nope, I don't note responses to any of those five points in your ensuing comments.  I was so disappointed in the same phenomenon (not singling you out) in the earlier discussion on the Celtics of the 50s and 60s that I made a similar list of completely disregarded points I had made.  It's huge!

You may feel many of my comments unreasonable, but I try to support each one with my attempt at evidence.  One of them was an answer to your minute-by-minute video commentary that you said you'd be glad to review if anyone had a comeback.  So I came back with a similar minute-by-minute video commentary, but somehow, I must have missed your promised review.  All I got (and not from you) was some laughable feedback on the value of crouching while skipping backward on full-court shadowing.

To comment on your points in your most recent post (as I always try to do):

• I've never denied that Phil won one more championship than Red did.  But I have made what I feel is the related remark that Phil was handed a lot of those championships via selective relationships.  Same for winning percentage, although I don't believe I've happened to mention how much easier it is to win a lot of games when the quality of "have not" teams is diluted.

• I agree that Phil was a smart coach—certainly smart enough to ally himself selectively with situations that had exceptional winning potential.

• I agree that Phil coached a lot of great players as did Red.  One difference is that Red developed a lot of his great players while Phil inherited a lot of his.

• Like you, I don't know for sure who coached more hall-of-famers, but I also assume it was Red.  I don't know whether you were trying to make a point with that comment, but I do know that Red had a history of acquiring players who were not considered luminaries or were subject to major questions at time of their acquisition (e.g., Sam, K.C., Heinsohn, Cousy, Havlicek, Ramsey, Parish, D.J., Jo Jo, and arguably Russell), and helping to make it possible for them to carve out hall-of-fame careers.

I'm sorry if you consider me a pit bull (my words) about the Russell Celtics.  I've definitely had occasion to voice my candid observations about their deficiencies, including lack of size.  But, frankly, they just didn't have a lot of deficiencies for the times.  I didn't come to think they were so great because I loved them; I grew to love them because they were so great.

Those who attempt to fabricate deficiencies about older teams generally use today's standards in evaluating something that happened half a century ago.  Of all the times I've talked about the importance of temporal context, I don't believe I've ever received a response representing either agreement or disagreement about that factor.  People just ignore those comments and keep on using today's game and tmes as a yardstick for the proficiency of the old game.

For instance, players in the Russell era didn't guard as close as today because the real danger was having one's opponent blow by and score on a high-percentage two-point shot.  It was considered prudent to risk having the opponent attempt a much lower-percentage long shot, since it would count for only two points as well.  But I don't recall receiving any feedback on that point either—just more comments that the guarding should have been closer because it would be closer today.

So I'm sorry if I'm what you would call "unreasonable" about the old Celtics.  I do happen to believe I know what I'm talking about in discussing that era; I don't like revisionist history; I'm naturally persistent as a result; and I enjoy being challenged fairly on those or any other points because it forces me to add perspective to my thinking.  But to be accused (not by you) of gaining conversational leverage by "outworking" other people is actually insulting because it implies that I use diligence as a substitute for substance.  I can't help it if some of my points may appear difficult to refute.  Perhaps there's a reason for that.  And, by the way, I almost never initiate discussions about the Celtics of the 50s and 50s because I've been accused falsely of doing too much of it.  In this thread, I'm responding to what someone else wrote.  When someone found a way to turn the playoff thread into a shot at 50s and 60s basketball, I responded.

There's no question that, during the earlier 50s/60s debate, having so many of my points simply ignored rather than being addressed (pro or con) was a low point for me on this board.  I decided to let it go because I'd much rather focus on what I hope lies ahead for the Celtics (including, ideally, rematches with the Lakers in title series).  So I'll mention it just this once (since the subject was initiated by someone else) and get on with posting life.

For one thing, I'll welcome comments of people who watched the Warriors-Cavs game last night.  I had great difficulty in finding game accounts other than the box score, despite the fact that I looked well into the evening.  I believe I saw that Kerr fingered Iguodala as the team's best player in the series, and Iggy is apparently proving that really good defense (1) can at least slow down really good offense under the right circumstances and (2) need not sap one's own offensive productivity in the process.  I'm sure it can't hurt the Warriors' cause that Lebron is the one truly potent offensive threat remaining for the Cavs.  I'm always happy when J.R. soils the bed.

Sam

Sam,

I do not normally ignore points or divert a conversation.
I do appreciate the time and effort that you and others put into their posts.
I do get tired of having a long and drawn out conversation with someone if I feel they are being inflexible.
I rarely feel that way about you, except for the discussions on the 50's and 60's.
I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I am 45 years old and see many things differently than you do.

I absolutely do not believe that players from the 50's and 60's played hands off defense because they were afraid the offensive player was going to blow by them.
I have yet so see one player in a video who had significant acceleration and speed like a Westbrook, Wall, Rose or Damian Lillard or almost any guard in today's game.
I saw players playing defense like in the movie Hoosiers and I saw many un-athletic guys shooting open set shots.
My 20 year old son and I watch some of the old videos and he cannot believe how soft the NBA players were back then. It is hard for us to not laugh at how they played.
Anyway, I'm getting tired of that subject...

Phil was not handed anything.
Yes, he coached many talented teams.
Yes, he put himself in a position to be a successful coach.
He also had to coach in a time where it is much harder to manage and maintain player relationships.
Red didn't have to deal with free agency, multi million dollar contracts, salary cap, players being their own corporation, huge egos, social media and so many other things that take a coaches time and focus away from coaching.

As for last nights game, it's hard to win a game when a team (Cavs) shoot 33% from the field and 15% from the 3 point line.
The Cavs bench scored a total of 7 points on 2-17 shooting, most of those misses were from JR Smith.
The Cavs have done a great job to be 2 to 2 in the series.
It will be hard for them to win 2 out of the next 3 games.

NBA free agency began in the '70s. Red wasn't coaching, but he was the GM, so he did have to deal with free agency. For the years Red was coaching, because he couldn't just go out and sign a free agent who would KILL to get on a team that was in the process of winning 11 championships in 13 years, he had to draft and develop his own.

Red didn't have to deal with multi-million dollar contracts, but the size of the contract is irrelevant to the coach, that is a GM's bailiwick. I don't understand why you think it makes a difference, to a coach, how many zeroes are in a player's paycheck.

How did Paul Pierce's foundation, The Truth Fund, affect how Doc played him? It sure didn't seem to slow Danny down when he decided it was time to transition the Celtics to a new generation. DWade has a foundation too, all the bigger contract stars do to reduce their taxes and enhance their PR image. If he wants more from Pat Riley than Riley is willing to pay him, he'll be gone from Miami, foundation or no foundation.

There isn't a successful, non-marginal, professional athlete in the world who doesn't have a big ego. It's a prerequisite.


bob


.