Jerry West Has Some Serious Doubts About Phil Jackson

Bob,

Do you honestly think that the egos of players back in the 50's and 60's were anything like they are today?
It was much simpler back then. You could coach basketball.
Today, there is so much more involved other then x's and o's.
Part of the make up of today's player is the amount of money they make.
I do not get the impression that players during Red's coaching career had huge egos.

Boston was lucky to be able to keep their team together for more than a decade.
That's not realistic in today's NBA.

TJ,

I never commented on whether players of the 50s and 60s were as fast as Wall or Rose.  My point was that a long shot for two points is a more acceptable risk than a short shot for two points.  Perhaps the term "blow by" was ill-advised, but letting your guy get by you was much less pardonable than having him hoist a long shot.  You don't have to believe it, but that was the strategic fact, and I discussed is many times with Sam and other Celtics.

Soft by what standards?  Yesterday's standards?  You're using today's criteria, just as I've been saying.  What may look soft by today's standards was good strategy back then.

When I asked the question of what was considered toughness in those days, I didn't receive a single answer.  The toughness in those days was more endurance-related, as I've said many times.  It's also related to the reason why shooting percentages were lower.  The pace of the games created more "grinder" type marathons, and very often to the fittest went the spoils.

As I believe you said, and occasional fight doesn't signify game-to-game toughness. With all the "policemen" who existed, that kind of toughness definitely existed, but it was employed primarily according to need rather than according to practice.

We just disagree as to whether Phil was handed anything.  I think he was very adept at being opportunistic.  Phil had to deal with some things Red didn't have to deal with.  But, just as a tiny example of using today's context to comment on yesterday's circumstances, $500 was what separated Sam Jones from being a basketball player and becoming a teacher.  Sam was moved to tears when Red offered him a $25,000 raise (a significant portion of Sam's salary) to stay for one more year; but Sam had a coaching job lined up and it offered him more security with government benefits.  

That's how players had to think back then.  A completely different world.  A completely different set of problems for the coach.  The monetary scale was dramatically different, but the negotiations over money still existed every single year.  And please don't try to tell me that players had no egos back then.  Phil never had to deal with so many of the ancillary tasks that Red did, including being the de facto traveling secretary, hammering out player contracts himself, performing the myriad roles now assumed by assistant coaches, etc.

I guess that's just me being "inflexible" again because I just answered your points with facts.  But if something in life is extremely important to me, I'm not going to cave in and agree with something I know not to be factual just in order to be ingratiating.

One thing I do understand is that it can become tiresome when a debate involves someone who keeps coming up with logical counter-responses to what one says.  I believe you're approaching the topic from a sense of logic, but that logic is predicated upon today's contexts.  My approach is less complex.  I was there!

So I fully empathize with dropping out of a discussion under that type of frustration.  I do admit to being frustrated, myself, at spending considerable time watching a video and crafting an answer in response to what I considered a commitment on your part to review the video if someone gave you a reason.  I guess my many points just didn't constitute enough of a reason.

But, please believe me, although I'm writing this to you, you weren't even the tip of the iceberg in my frustration on that thread.  Even when I may not agree with you, I know you have a darned good and well-considered reason for what you say.  Always!

I hope you're right about it being hard for the Cavs to win 2 out of the next 3 games. They have definitely responded to becoming underdogs, and I have complimented them on realizing that defense, more than offense, is their only chance to prevail.  As I said earlier, I'm happy when J.R. Smith fails badly.  Thanks for the recap.

Here's a related question.  Why is a guy who can shoot amazingly from all over the floor not a better free throw shooter?  

I consider you extremely lucky to be age 45.  When I was 45, they hadn't yet invented ages.  For my part, I consider myself lucky to have had deep experience with an era that left me feeling confident in my observations of the era.  Confident enough to be persistent in my assertions.

No hard feelings on this end.  And I'm still extremely and sincerely interested if you might have the time to let me know how things are going in general.  I can guarantee a high level of engagement and interest in what you might have to say.

All the best,

Sam

"I don't understand why you think it makes a difference, to a coach, how many zeroes are in a player's paycheck."

One difference is that the often huge disparity between a star player's and a coach's salaries gives the player much more leverage to get what he wants should a conflict arise.

Management almost always sides with the person they've invested 50 million guaranteed dollars in over one they've invested five or six million.

sam wrote:TJ,

I never commented on whether players of the 50s and 60s were as fast as Wall or Rose.  My point was that a long shot for two points is a more acceptable risk than a short shot for two points.  Perhaps the term "blow by" was ill-advised, but letting your guy get by you was much less pardonable than having him hoist a long shot.  You don't have to believe it, but that was the strategic fact, and I discussed is many times with Sam and other Celtics.

Soft by what standards?  Yesterday's standards?  You're using today's criteria, just as I've been saying.  What may look soft by today's standards was good strategy back then.

When I asked the question of what was considered toughness in those days, I didn't receive a single answer.  The toughness in those days was more endurance-related, as I've said many times.  It's also related to the reason why shooting percentages were lower.  The pace of the games created more "grinder" type marathons, and very often to the fittest went the spoils.

As I believe you said, and occasional fight doesn't signify game-to-game toughness. With all the "policemen" who existed, that kind of toughness definitely existed, but it was employed primarily according to need rather than according to practice.

We just disagree as to whether Phil was handed anything.  I think he was very adept at being opportunistic.  Phil had to deal with some things Red didn't have to deal with.  But, just as a tiny example of using today's context to comment on yesterday's circumstances, $500 was what separated Sam Jones from being a basketball player and becoming a teacher.  Sam was moved to tears when Red offered him a $25,000 raise (a significant portion of Sam's salary) to stay for one more year; but Sam had a coaching job lined up and it offered him more security with government benefits.  

That's how players had to think back then.  A completely different world.  A completely different set of problems for the coach.  The monetary scale was dramatically different, but the negotiations over money still existed every single year.  And please don't try to tell me that players had no egos back then.  Phil never had to deal with so many of the ancillary tasks that Red did, including being the de facto traveling secretary, hammering out player contracts himself, performing the myriad roles now assumed by assistant coaches, etc.

I guess that's just me being "inflexible" again because I just answered your points with facts.  But if something in life is extremely important to me, I'm not going to cave in and agree with something I know not to be factual just in order to be ingratiating.

One thing I do understand is that it can become tiresome when a debate involves someone who keeps coming up with logical counter-responses to what one says.  I believe you're approaching the topic from a sense of logic, but that logic is predicated upon today's contexts.  My approach is less complex.  I was there!

So I fully empathize with dropping out of a discussion under that type of frustration.  I do admit to being frustrated, myself, at spending considerable time watching a video and crafting an answer in response to what I considered a commitment on your part to review the video if someone gave you a reason.  I guess my many points just didn't constitute enough of a reason.

But, please believe me, although I'm writing this to you, you weren't even the tip of the iceberg in my frustration on that thread.  Even when I may not agree with you, I know you have a darned good and well-considered reason for what you say.  Always!

I hope you're right about it being hard for the Cavs to win 2 out of the next 3 games. They have definitely responded to becoming underdogs, and I have complimented them on realizing that defense, more than offense, is their only chance to prevail.  As I said earlier, I'm happy when J.R. Smith fails badly.  Thanks for the recap.

Here's a related question.  Why is a guy who can shoot amazingly from all over the floor not a better free throw shooter?  

I consider you extremely lucky to be age 45.  When I was 45, they hadn't yet invented ages.  For my part, I consider myself lucky to have had deep experience with an era that left me feeling confident in my observations of the era.  Confident enough to be persistent in my assertions.

No hard feelings on this end.  And I'm still extremely and sincerely interested if you might have the time to let me know how things are going in general.  I can guarantee a high level of engagement and interest in what you might have to say.

All the best,

Sam

Sam,

You again offered very valid and well thought out points. 
I don't have much time to reply but I didn't want it to seem like I am ignoring your post. 
I will try to catch up with you tomorrow. 

TJ

Sam I don't understand this word context, ofcourse were gonna use the context of todays players, your using the context of the 50-60's players, why wouldn't we use the context of todays players in comparing abilities and skills of both generations? You named specific points in the game on your post a while ago, what was your point? There was contact in those days too, no one is denying that, but the overall physicality and speed and athleticism is so much greater and abundant today, do you want me to name each play on some in game video?. Russell's biggest advantage is that he is the one guy with the best jumping and athleticism from that era. And heres more context, the way Shaq was developed or coached how to use his physicality was something Russell never faced, as great as Russell was in his time or context, he would be punished by Shaq. Wilt wasn't coached to use his strength to the extent of todays players, it was a different context and time.

Cow, I have come to realize the term "context" is not widely understood and is easy to ignore even by many who claim to understand it.

I'll try to put it as simply as I can.  The NBA basketball world was different back then, but it was the best it could be.  They didn't have the many advantages of today—a fact that is often mentioned but then is ignored.  They didn't have many of the conditions or rules of today—a fact that is often mentioned but then is ignored.  The absence of the need to guard for the three-pointer had a dramatic impact on how they played defense, but you have consistently ignore that fact.  Their emphasis on volume basketball, the up-tempo game, and endurance had a dramatic effect on what represented toughness and their shooting percentages.  Today's more deliberate game and the added threat of the three-point shot are just two of the factors that lead to higher effective field goal percentages, and I haven't even mentioned the tighter rims that today's fans are experts in ignoring.

All of the bolded things, and many, many more that I could have mentioned, are elements of context—basically the underpinnings of basketball life back then that (1) differentiated it from today's basketball life and (2) differentiated the way coaches and players back then strategized and executed.  If you want a dictionary definition, the first one I came up with was that context represents the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.  In other words, context is not the event itself—the game, the skill, whatever.  Context is what has a major bearing on how the event plays out.

You're obviously unaware of what context means because you're talking about specific time-related advantages and calling them contexts.  A context is some condition that's an underpinning or reason or setting for a perceived advantage.

Just because a person is now alive doesn't mandate that the person cannot be sensitive to contexts of the past.  Are Revolutionary War soldiers laughed at because they didn't have the capability to wipe out a large city in seconds the way the pilot of the Enola Gay could do?  Presumably the older soldiers were every bit as skilled in using the means at their disposal and exercising bravery as the pilot was.  The fact that the pilot had advanced weaponry didn't mean he was a better practitioner of war in his time.  The contexts were different.  You may not believe this, but many people actually have the capacity to realize and acknowledge that fact.  All it takes is a bit of vision.

I hear so much about the speed of today's game being much greater than in the past.  Well, then, why did games of the past produce vastly more possessions than today's games?  Because the contexts were different:

• For one thing, they pushed the ball constantly back in the day.  We love it when today's Celtics do it on occasion.  But the persistence of it in Russell's day is pretty much ignored as a killer (and debilitating) weapon by today's fans who are more attuned to iso ball (aka periodic rest stops).

Sure, Cow, I'd be ecstatic to sit with you and look at the non-stop action of an actual game of yesteryear and then point out all the "rest stops" of today while some iso-head dribbles between his legs and possibly between his ears while thinking about his upcoming evening's conquest and finally condescending to display his one-on-one skills for fans.

• For another thing, when talking about speed, many less creative of today's fans tend to think mainly about foot speed.  That's their context.  But, if I asked which teams average(d) less time in getting the ball up the floor—the teams of yesteryear or the teams of now—foot speed alone would an inadequate context—hence the greater number of possessions per game back in Russell's day.  Today's fans would tend to ignore the oldsters' reliance of the fact that a thrown ball travels faster than a ball dribbled by Wall or Rose or any of today's players.  The pass was a much more integral part of propelling the ball upcourt in the old days.  It was a difference in context, but so many people are so intent on observing only the tunnel vision represented by today's context, that they lack the capacity to take into account any context that does not support their case.  Why shouldn't speed be measured by the end result (including, in this case, the passing game) rather than by only one component of the end result?

How can you presume to expound on how Wilt was coached?  You have no idea about how Wilt was coached.  You're just assuming, which is as close as you get to what passes for attention to context.  Basically, if it doesn't support your claims, it's unimportant or fictitious.

Wilt used his strength AND agility AND leaping ability constantly.  (Gee, Shaqputty was one-for-three on this score.)  The rap on Wilt was lack of meanness, which was undoubtedly a blessing for the rest of the league.   And another contextual area that you completely ignore with respect to Russell and Shaqputty is that Russell's "now you see him, now you don't agility would be very effective vs. Shaq.  Blocking shots against earth-bound Shaqputty would be a dream because Russ never fell for upfakes, given his ultra-quick leaping ability.  But what would be most effective for Russ vs. Shaqputty would be the durability that you choose to dismiss as of secondary importance.  Russ would have run Shaqputty into Shawbuttah, which is exactly what Russ was in the process of doing to a much younger Wilt before Wilt got his boo boo in Russell's very last game.

I've already talked about the bogus and selective interpretation of "speed."  "Overall physicality" is such a general term, and context very much enters the picture.  What represents physicality today is a function of the context that players don't understand the game nearly as well as players of the past, so today's players have to rely on physicality and iso skills rather than the degree of finesse, interaction and appreciation of the nuances of the game as exercised by the far more knowledgeable players of Russ's day.  And, by playing the game the way they did, the players of yesterday were better able to conserve their energies to utilize their brand of toughness—the aforementioned durability and debilitation factors.

I'm not saying that the way today's players do it is wrong; it's in keeping with two of today's contexts: (1) their relative lack of basketball knowledge and (2) the general "entertainment-$" orientation of today .  I can accept the presence of those contexts even if I'm glad they didn't influence the Russell Celtics.  I wish you could return the favor in accepting the differences produced by contexts past.

Basically, regardless of how you may try to camouflage it, you are claiming that players and basketball of the Russell years were inferior to those of today because those players of yesterday should be evaluated based on the contexts of today.  They were certainly different.  But you focus only on those factors what are the result of changes in the times more than changes in the players.  Players of both yesterday and today perform(ed) within the very different contexts of their times.

One reason that many people say that era-to-era comparisons are foolish is because (whether or not they consciously realize this) the varying contexts are so different as to make a realistic comparison impossible.

You (and others) are fond of slipping in little ill-informed barbs about the Russell Celtics.  I'm not the one starting those conversations.  But I'm always there to try to emphasize the nonsensicality of them.

Some people may call me inflexible; but I'm not the one who refuses to recognize the contexts of today's game.  I just try to ensure that the contexts of various eras are regarded within a reasonable perspective.

And you can take this to the bank.  I will never once overlook an opportunity to do so.  Revisionist history sucks.  If people don't like my reaction to it, there's only one way (beside death) to stop me.  Think two or three times about context before attempting to revise history.

And please let the record show that I posted this message (as I do with many of my posts about era-to-era comparisons) not unilaterally, but in specific response to a request or challenge from someone else.

Sam

TJ,

I'm not worried at all about your timing.  It's remotely possible that you have responsibilities more pressing than this board.  LOL.  I''m always ready to continue the dialog or, in this case, to discontinue it because—you're right—it is becoming tedious.

Sam

Sam you defend your era with honor very well.

On Shaq, once he realized how to play more agressively, he was quoted that he gave the Dream too much respect when they lost to Rockets in 95, he was the most physical force in the sport ever for a 5-6 year stretch. The Shaq I used to see overpower guys like Ewing and Robinson even with Duncan helping would have no problem putting up 40 on the great Russell. I'm sure Russ would get his share of blocked shots and rebounds, but Wilt used to put up 40 on Russ all the time and Shaq is heftier and stronger than Wilt. If Shaq played in Wilts era, I have no doubt he could put up similar numbers against the smaller more unathletic players that Wilt went up against.