Jack’s Blog

There are differing styles of coaches just as there are different styles of coaching.  As with the varied ways coaches choose to attempt to win games strategically, the overall coaching philosophy of reaching players and bringing out the best they have to give crosses just as wide a spectrum.When I first got involved in athletics, the most popular coaching style undoubtedly was the one based on fear and respect of authority figures.  Being a “Baby Boomer,” I am part of a generation who saw their fathers rush to serve their country in World War II and be enormously proud of it (mine included).  Speaking at coaching clinics, I often made mention that the difference between the players of my day and the players of today is that, if I ever went home and told my father the coach yelled at me, my dad would “dress me down” and wonder what I did to make the coach so upset (to the point that punishment may have followed), while when today’s player informs his father (or mother) the coach yelled at him (or her), the parent immediately starts searching for the lawyer’s number.

The coaches of this breed usually shared a mantra.  It is, “Tear them down so we can build them back up.”  Those who experienced the most success employing this method are John Thompson, Bob Knight and Pat Summitt - each a Hall-of-Fame Coach, the last of whom is the current leader in career wins.  Each of the three were known for their unquestioned authority and Pat, whom I got to know well during my seven years in Big Orange Country and whom I consider the best coach - man or woman - I’ve ever seen (keep in mind, I coached with and against some of the nation’s best over 30 years), is still famous for her “Stare.”  Many a player and assistant of hers have told me you don’t want to be on the receiving end of IT (caps intended).

A similar style is the coach whose number one key to success lies in the toughness of the team.  Examples of this type range from Billy Martin and Woody Hayes to Bob Huggins and Tom Izzo.  Every name mentioned truly believed/believes in the saying, “A team takes on the personality of its coach” and consider that to be a bonafide compliment.

Maybe in a class by himself for winning the way he did was Vince Lombardi who religiously felt that all players should be treated equally and as one of his star players confirmed, “Coach Lombardi treated each of us the same - like dogs.”  Consider, also, that he might be believed to be the greatest football coach of all-time.

Another popular style is that of the coach who gives his/her players the utmost respect as people, realizing the team is going to be only as good as the players on it perform.  This is not a new philosophy.  It was successfully used by Dean Smith, Tommy Lasorda, Jerry Tarkanian (a coach I worked under who excelled in people skills ) and Tony Dungy.  Modern versions of this coach are Sean Payton, Doc Rivers and Brad Stevens.

Which method is the best method is an easy question to answer.  It’s the one in which the style suits the coach’s personality.  In other words, “To thine own self be true” is a perfect fit for one to decide which type of coach to be.

The one trait that all these highly successful coaches had in common was that they all truly cared about their players.  In addition, there are two other areas I think must be mentioned.  One is that it’s difficult (although maybe not impossible) for a coach to be successful if his or her ego is out of control.  However, the other is a virtual lock for the unsuccessful coach (especially one in charge of adults) and that is you’re digging an awfully deep hole, one which you may never be able to extricate yourself from, if you choose to motivate by humiliating people.  Because, as Lord Chesterfield remarked:

“He makes people pleased with him by making them first pleased with themselves.”

Which finals coach has the make up of a champion?  Neither Rick Carlisle nor Erik Spoelstra has been to the mountaintop of coaching.  How can they be evaluated then?  The following is a blog from last June.  Does it shed light on which guy will be hoisting the Larry O’Brien trophy?  Decide for yourself.

Much has been made of the fact that in the last 20 years, only six coaches have claimed the NBA championship (neither of this year’s contestants are a member of that group).  So what ingredients go into making a championship basketball coach on the professional level?

Great player?  Doubtful (Carlisle was the better player but neither would be considered great).  There have been many more great players who’ve tried their hand at coaching and haven’t won than those who have. Of the six latest NBA championship coaches, Rudy Tomjanovich would probably rank as the best player, with Gregg Popovich being at the bottom of the list skill-wise (Doc Rivers, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson and Larry Brown are the others who’ve won titles in the NBA since 1990).  Moot point this year.

As far as coaching in the college ranks prior to taking on an NBA job, only Pop and Brown had done so, Larry having a great deal more success (winning an NCAA title with Kansas) than Pop (who struggled mightily at Pomona-Pitzer).  If I’m not mistaken, of all the coaches who’ve ever won an NBA championship, only Chuck Daly, Jack Ramsey, Dick Motta, Paul Westhead and Bill Fitch were collegiate head coaches before going on to win an NBA title.  Once again, non-factor.

In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any blueprint for NBA coaching success other than the obvious: having a whole lotta talent (advantage Spoelstra).  But even with that, a championship isn’t guaranteed.  Within the past two decades, communication has become of vital importance in leading any type of organization.  The authoritative mentality, e.g. “He treats us all the same - like dogs” used so successfully by Vince Lombardi would meet with resistance (probably to a man) now, unlike in the heyday of the Packers.  Neither fits the bill.

The one common denominator each of those championship coaches had was a very focused leader on the floor, one who commanded the respect of his teammates.  At the risk of upsetting some, let’s say these leaders are named Dirk Nowitzki and Dwyane Wade.  Of course they all possessed overwhelming talent, but beyond that, each superstar had his own style of leading, some more vocal than others, but each displaying one common theme - leading by example (put each in that category).  From MJ to Hakeem to David Robinson and Tim Duncan to Kobe and Shaq (granted, it was difficult to follow Shaq’s example - he, among all of these guys, could truly be categorized as unique) to Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton to KG, they were comfortable in their roles as the go-to guy and were, for the most part, players who set good examples.

So, to make one of the greatest understatements of all-time, it seems like the coach isn’t nearly as valuable as the best player (much more apparent this year).  As long as that player doesn’t flaunt his power. In all, acceptance of leadership is what’s necessary for a championship club (and this year - THAT could be the key) and in the words of Nathaniel Branden:

“Accepting does not necessarily mean ‘liking,’ ‘enjoying,’ or ‘condoning.’ I can accept what is - and be determined to evolve from there.”

Could it be that what everyone predicted last summer when LeBron James and Chris Bosh decided to join Dwyane Wade and the Miami Heat is going to actually happen?  After witnessing the first game of the second round series between the Heat and the Celtics, all signs are definitely heading in that direction.

Miami basically led wire to wire yesterday, beating Boston 99-90.  It wasn’t the win as much as the way they did it that frightens - or excites depending on which side of the “Miami dynasty” you’re on - the basketball community.  Wade pouring in 38 points was a minor surprise based on his production numbers against the Celts during the regular season, but to see James Jones hit open three after open three was a stunner.

Obviously, Doc Rivers and his staff will be working deep into the night to make adjustments for game 2.  One sure bet will be that whoever’s defending Jones won’t be leaving him to help nearly as much.  The biggest challenge, which their staff and players are certainly up to, will be to tighten what they hang their hat on - defense.

The most asked question in this series is a simple one:

“Eh, what’s up, Doc?”

There’s one thing that’s the same for all of us, independent of how much - or little - money we have.  That thing is time.  Each person has 24 hours in a day.  The difference is how we choose to use that time.

One of the most difficult challenges in life is balancing work and family.  Coaches, especially those who are ultra-competitive, are a highly driven bunch.  In addition, the great ones (and to be honest, the not so great ones) form such a tight bond with their teams that that group becomes, as corny as it sometimes sounds, their second family.

So, although Doc Rivers’ older two children, Jeremiah and Callie, are student-athletes in their senior year in college, the former a basketball player at Indiana, the latter a volleyballer at Florida, and his second son, Austin, a star hoopster at Winter Park (FL) HS, he’s decided to return to coach the Boston Celtics.  Is he choosing work over family?  Hardly.

Four years ago, Doc reportedly spent over $200,000 of his personal money to charter planes to be there at his kids’ games.  It made for a hectic schedule but for guys like Rivers, it’s the only way he’d have it.  Work and family.  Expensive, time consuming, tiring - but worth it.  He happens to be someone with two passions - and finds makes the time to successfully accomplish both at championship levels.

As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I enjoy audio books when I’m driving.  One I recently listened to was entitled Fifth Quarter by Jennifer Allen.  Other than the fact that it must have been a cathartic experience for her to do the book, I can’t imagine why someone would publicly go into detail assassinating her entire family.  The contents of the book might be the topic of a blog someday, but for now, suffice to say that when Papa George did find time to drag away himself from his job to spend with his family, he - and they - were miserable.

On the other hand, Tony Dungy, no less a coach in the win-loss column than Allen, managed to strike a balance between his two families - the biological one and the team he happened to be in charge of - by encouraging his assistant coaches to have their wives and children around the team and the franchise’s facilities as much as reasonably feasible.

Another coach, Phil Jackson, whose family is grown, but whose body is broken down, made the identical decision as Rivers - even though he has yet to sign a contract and there have been rumors that, while Laker owner Jerry Buss wanted his leader to return, he planned on cutting his $12 million salary in half.  I imagine Phil will get his dough (in addition to the $12M, he received another couple mil for winning the championship).  It just seems that coaching and the competitive drive fuel these guys - so much so that, although one would be content watching his children play and the other happy to allow his body to heal, their lives would somehow be incomplete without their profession.

After Doc’s performance as head coach following the acquisition of, among others, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, I would imagine the Celtics, who compensate him quite handsomely, have inserted a clause which states that he needn’t shell out his own hard earned cash in order to maintain a somewhat normal relationship with his wife, Kris, and their four children.  Leading a team to two NBA Finals in three years, winning one and going to a Game 7 in the other, earn a coach a longer leash.            

Meanwhile, keep in mind that a man of this makeup doesn’t want to leave his other family, especially when the window for winning is closing fast.  That’s why Doc said, “We want to go after it one more time with this group,” meaning, in all likelihood, that Paul Pierce, who recently opted out of his contract to be a free agent, and Ray Allen, whose contract is up, will be offered contracts and will most likely rejoin the Celts to make another run at a title - one they felt, barring the injury to center Kendrick Perkins, would have been their second in three years. 

Rivers’ priorities are properly in line and even the most cynical critic can’t question his integrity, work ethic or results.  The wrap up quote belongs to Doc: 

“It’s not the perfect way to live, but it’s the right way.  I know there are Boston fans out there who think I should live up there.  But if it comes down to upsetting a million people in Boston, or the five people in my family, I’ll figure out a way to deal with the million.”

Each year, the NBA’s contending teams make moves they hope will pay off with a title.  This past NBA season saw a flurry of activity, with each move trumpeted as “the one” to push that team ahead of the others.

In San Antonio, the addition of Richard Jefferson was supposed to add offense and athleticism to the (aging) Big Three (Duncan, Parker & Ginobli).  The Spurs never have replaced the lockdown defense that Edison (Fresno) High’s Bruce Bowen gave them.  With Jefferson, a hard-to-guard three man, moving into the lineup, the thought was the Spurs would be a formidable threat.

The Cleveland Cavaliers picked up Shaquille O’Neal and Antawn Jamison.  People who praised the move said he’s still a beast (for brief periods) and one who could guard Dwight Howard.  In addition, the big guy wanted to show he’d gladly be regulated to sidekick so he could to bring a championship to the Cavs (mainly LeBron) like he did for DWade.  Critics of O’Neal said opponents would put him in pick & roll situations, a fact not denied by anyone in basketball.  Jamison was supposed to take some of the scoring load off of James.

The Orlando Magic, came so close last year to winning it all, but having lost Hedo Turkoglu, realized they needed serious help - which came in the form of Vince Carter.  Never have fans and pundits swayed to and fro when it came to assessing whether obtaining VC was a good move or not.  They’d win and - if Carter played well - the blockbuster move was brilliant.  A Magic loss, or a few in a row, and VC was the on the receiving end of brutal criticism.  One reason was that there was no move the Magic could have made that would have replaced what they lost in Torkoglu’s game.

Boston made a huge move when they acquired Rasheed Wallace.  Sheed gets a bad rap from fans, mainly because of his on court rantings and the number of T’s he picks up.  However, talk to any NBA insider and they’ll tell, to a man, what a great teammate and locker room guy Wallace is.  Then, late in the season, the Celtics picked up controversial and talented Nate Robinson from the dysfunctional Knicks - a move that paid off exactly as Doc Rivers had predicted.

However, the Lakers addition of Ron Artest, also a lightning rod for controversy, paid off the most.  Why?  Because LA won the championship and as the saying in professional sports goes:

“Winning isn’t everything.  It’s . . . Forget it, winning IS everything.”

 �

At this time of year, with the World Cup capturing the interest of such a large segment of society, with the NBA Finals grabbing record TV shares, with Major League Baseball revitalized - mainly due to superb pitching - and with NFL camps in full OTA swing, the world of sports is teaching the lesson that, in order to win, teams need to pull together.  Even John Wooden’s passing last week reminded us of his teachings (preachings) of togetherness and winning as well-oiled units. 

Why is it then, as I have blogged on other occasions, that in politics, the main message is, “Don’t vote for the clown who’s running against me!  And to prove I mean it, I’m going to put my money where my mouth is - television ads!”  Living in California, I know so much dirt on Meg Whitman that I feel like the people here voted for a major loser!  Of course, I would feel the exact same way had Steve Poizner won.

Imagine a basketball game between the Celtics and the Lakers in which the winner was decided by a fan vote.  Paul Pierce ( a crowd favorite) would tell the crowd (including a national TV audience), “Remember that Ron Artest (who has a strong following of his own) was the guy who went into the stands at The Palace in Detroit and fought with a fan,” to which Artest would say, “Oh yeah?  Didn’t you get that scar on your face after you got into a fight in a bar?”

Then Rajon Rondo (an extremely popular Celtic) would jump in and say, “Lamar Odom is a guy who went to Rhode Island because no other school would even try to get him in after they saw his transcript.”  Then Lamar (a true swingman) would retaliate with, “Hey, Rondo, you want to talk about violatin’ NCAA rules?  Man, you went to Kentucky!”

Naturally, (the magnetic) Kevin Garnett would come to his buddy, Shorty’s, aid and deflect the Kentucky-NCAA issue (which certainly could swing the voters away from a Celtics’ victory) by attacking the Lakers’ main strength, Kobe Bryant (who, if left unscathed, could deliver the Lakers a victory nearly by himself).  “Let’s not put Kobe too high on a pedestal.  Don’t forget Colorado.”  The Black Mamba, being the competitor that he is (and realizing that in a war of words, he has a distinct advantage over KG), retaliates with, “KG, at least I can speak.  As a matter of fact, I’m bilingual.  Oh yeah, I forgot.  So are you - English and profanity.”

As the “game” wore on, somebody would bring up that Doc Rivers did something bad when he was in high school in Chicago, followed by a report that insinuated Phil Jackson might have been involved with “Mary Jane” during the long-haired time of his life.  Then the campaign will talk about Kendrick Perkins spending time in the principal’s office when he was nine and Pau Gasol being part a protest in Spain during his teenage years.

At some point, there will have to be a vote to determine the “winner.”  Really, these votes determine the worse of the two losers.  And we get stuck with the runner-up as a representative.  What brought this to my attention was a Q&A in the recent Time magazine (6/21/10) with Florida’s governor, Charlie Crist, who’s running for the Senate.  In it, Crist said, in answer to the question about his leaving the Republican party to run as an independent, “Washington is stuck in gridlock.  There’s a lot ‘party first.’  The purpose of good government is to fight for the people, not the party.”

His quote that attracted me was: “There’s all this bickering back and forth.  People want our leaders to be better than that, to rise above it.

“If we’re just arguing with each other, how are we making progress?”

Or know who’s winning?  

  �

Doc Rivers, prior to Game Two, joked that he hears when his team loses, it’s because they’re old, but when they win, it’s due to their experience.  We have to make up our minds. 

Most people wait until after an event takes place so they can sound more intelligent when pontificating as to why it happened.  Doing it that way makes them sound so incredibly knowledgeable.  In the case of the Boston Celtics, we’ll find out soon enough whether it’s age or experience.  Game Two (which the Celtics won) was Sunday in LA.  Game Three is scheduled for today in Boston and Game Four, also in Boston, is set for Thursday.  Three games in five days. 

If Father Time truly is a factor, the Men in Green will find it difficult attempting to ready their aged bodies for the inevitable physical punishment that accompanies an NBA finals - independent of the partisan home crowd chanting, “Beat LA!”

No predictions here since I’m not sure that the finely conditioned bodies of elite NBA players can’t handle the grueling contest(s) that await them - taking into account all that’s on the line and knowing the “window” can’t remain open too much longer.  Then again, Father Time has earned his reputation throughout the years. 

I imagine the players wearing the home whites will subscribe to Judith Regan’s theory:

“The key to successful aging is to pay as little attention to it as possible.”�

Much has been made of the fact that in the last 20 years, only six coaches have claimed the NBA championship.  So what ingredients go into making a championship basketball coach on the professional level?

Great player?  Doubtful.  There have been many more great players who’ve tried their hand at coaching and haven’t won than those who have.  Of the six latest NBA championship coaches, Rudy Tomjanovich would probably rank as the best player, with Gregg Popovich being at the bottom of the list skill-wise (Doc Rivers, Pat Riley, Phil Jackson and Larry Brown are the others who’ve won titles in the NBA since 1990).

As far as coaching in the college ranks prior to taking on an NBA job, only Pop and Brown had done so, Larry having a great deal more success (winning an NCAA title with Kansas) than Pop (who struggled mightily at Pomona-Pitzer).  If I’m not mistaken, of all the coaches who’ve ever won an NBA championship, only Chuck Daly, Jack Ramsey, Dick Motta, Paul Westhead and Bill Fitch were collegiate head coaches before going on to win an NBA title. 

In fact, there doesn’t seem to be any blueprint for NBA coaching success other than the obvious: having a whole lotta talent.  And even with that, a championship isn’t guaranteed.  Within the past two decades, communication has become of vital importance in leading any type of organization.  The authoritative mentality, e.g. “He treats us all the same - like dogs” used so successfully by Vince Lombardi would meet with resistance (probably to a man) now, unlike in the heyday of the Packers.

The one common denominator each of those championship coaches had was a very focused leader on the floor, one who commanded the respect of his teammates.  Of course they all possessed overwhelming talent, but beyond that, each superstar had his own style of leading, some more vocal than others, but each displaying one common theme - leading by example.  From MJ to Hakeem to David Robinson and Tim Duncan to Kobe and Shaq (granted, it was difficult to follow Shaq’s example - he, among all of these guys, could truly be categorized as unique) to Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton to D Wade to KG, they were comfortable in their roles as the go-to guy and were, for the most part, players who set good examples.

So, to make one of the greatest understatements of all-time, it seems like the coach isn’t nearly as valuable as the best player.  As long as that player doesn’t flaunt the obvious.  In all, acceptance of leadership is what’s necessary for a championship club and in the words of Nathaniel Branden:

“Accepting does not necessarily mean ‘liking,’ ‘enjoying,’ or ‘condoning.’  I can accept what is - and be determined to evolve from there.” �

According to the pundits, the only way for the Celtics to win Game Six of their Eastern Conference finals (and give them a chance to play for the NBA championship - because Lord knows, they didn’t want to have to return to Orlando tied at three after having led 3-0) was for Rajon Rondo to return them to their potent running game.  Sure enough, that’s exactly what the Boston floor general did as the Celts built up an early lead. 

But then, something not so funny happened on the way to the basket.  Rondo’s game was cooking!  After running the Magic into near submission, the latest NBA point guard phenom decided to take on three of the Magic defenders with one of his patented strong moves to the basket.  He elevated and got fouled, but hit the floor hard - with his left hip breaking his fall.  He remained on the floor for longer than anyone (except maybe the Magic) desired, grimacing in pain all the while.

Could the Big Green’s newly appointed leader be hurt so badly he couldn’t continue?  What would the Celtics do?  Enter 5′8″ Nate Robinson.  The same Nate Robinson who helped the Knicks by scoring 41 points on New Year’s Day against the Atlanta Hawks and the same guy who is credited for helping put the “fun” in dysfunctional for those same ‘Bockers.

When Danny Ainge made the deal for Robinson, he was criticized for “messing with the Celts’ team chemistry,” but head coach Doc Rivers maintained that the diminutive Robinson would not only help them, but help them win a playoff game.  After last night, Doc’s tarot cards could fetch a mean price on eBay.  Nate scored 13 points with a pair of assists and as many rebounds, but it was actually his defense that may have turned the game into a rout.

Often, when a team sees an opponent’s star go down, they have a tendency to let up, perhaps thinking fate is on their side.  Letting up is the wrong strategy when Nate Robinson is hounding you, as Magic PG Jameer Nelson was quick to discover.  Robinson forced turnovers and disrupted Orlando’s offense, on many occasions, making them initiate it with not as much time on the shot clock as they would have liked or farther away from the basket (and Dwight Howard) than they needed in order to be effective. 

When asked about his performance, Robinson, in an uncharacteristic display of humility, said, “They always told me be ready, be ready you never know.”  When Rondo went down following his being fouled, there was a hard knock heard on the floor of the arena.  As Frederick Phillips once said:

“It is often hard to distinguish between the hard knocks in life and those of opportunity.”

Kendrick Perkins should have read my blog yesterday.  For those you who haven’t - and thank you to the many who contacted me by posting a comment, emailing me with kind words or calling my cell phone (I’m starting to figure out this “power of the Internet” thing everybody’s always talking about), the blog was about NBA players complaining - about every call - and even some of the non-calls too.

In this case, while Perkins does need to maintain better control over his emotions (after all, the game is about more than just him), the subsequent technical foul called by veteran official Eddie F. Rush was flat-out wrong.  While Perkins displayed disagreement, he was walking away from the action - and Rush.  There was absolutely no reason, other than Rush’s ego, for him to make that call.  And because it’s Perkins’ seventh technical of the post-season (who said Rasheed Wallace doesn’t have influence over the Celtics?), he, by rule, merits an automatic one game suspension.

The way the series has made a turnaround, the likes of which haven’t been seen since . . . yesterday, when the Phoenix Suns tied their series with the Lakers, the Celtics look like Friday’s game in Boston, although they still lead 3-2, is a must game.  Consider that they lost Game Four and then got hammered last night.  That means should they go down in Game Six, the deciding game will be in Orlando.  Don’t think that after winning three in a row and heading home the Magic won’t be a prohibitive favorite.  In a game of Friday’s magnitude, Boston had better have everyone on its roster.  Which definitely includes their starting center.

Doc Rivers (have you ever seen a calmer guy in such a stressful situation?) mentioned that, had Rush known the call would have automatically disqualified Perkins from Game Six, he probably wouldn’t have made it.  Slick move.  Why antagonize a league that holds in their hands the decision as to whether Doc’s club has to go into a pressure-packed game short-handed?  Plus, if he complains, he 1) gives his guys a reason to justify losing (it was the referee’s fault) and 2) gets hit with a fine which, in the current state of affairs, just adds insult to injury (to his bank account).

What Eddie Rush did reminds me of a story the late Jim Valvano used to tell.  In an NC State game in which V was coaching, he complained to an official about a call.  The ref hit him with a technical foul.  When Jim asked the guy why what he said deserved a tech, the zebra turned to him and said, “Jim, you showed me up.”

Valvano said to the guy (and this line should be retold at every officials’ meeting):

“Showed you up?  Who the hell do you think came to watch YOU!” �