Jack’s Blog

What defines a successful coach?  Is a high school coach judged by how many wins he gets or how many of his kids continue playing at the college level?  How about a college coach?  Is it how many championships he wins or how many future pros he develops?  And on the professional level?  That one’s easy.  Or is it?

Is an NBA coach deemed a success only by the number of championship rings he acquires?  What about guys like Hubie Brown, Jeff Van Gundy, George Karl, Don Nelson and Jerry Sloan - none of whom won it all as a coach (not counting Hubie’s championship with the Kentucky Colonels of the ABA), yet each of whom is highly respected in coaching circles.

There are those (mainly fans) who refuse to place Phil Jackson on a coaching pedestal, scoffing that the only reason he won championships (11 of them) is because he had the best players.  These purists claim that the truly successful coach is someone like Red Auerbach.  But didn’t Red have the best players of that day?  Or at least more of them?

Some people state that a great coach is one who gets players to play as close to their potential as humanly possible.  The problem with that definition is how does anyone know another’s maximum potential?  Maybe the key to coaching is getting the guys to “play hard.”  At least when teams are giving all-out effort fans feel they’re getting their money’s worth - if only because they know how hard it is to give such an effort, whether in a physical workout or simply in their daily job.  It would be interesting to be able to measure max effort in the workplace.

Although it might not be the trump card regarding the ultimate goal of coaching, Phil Jackson made quite an intriguing remark to Dan Patrick in his interview in the most recent Sports Illustrated issue (2/28/11):

“Coaching is about wills.  You have to outwill players sometimes and get them to give up their selfish motives.”

When an NBA lifer calls it quits - in the middle of the season - red flags start flying.  Especially after the guy in question is Utah Jazz coach Jerry Sloan and his abrupt resignation takes place suspiciously close to an altercation he had with talented point guard Deron Williams.

Something sinister - with a villain?  Apparently, the answer to that depends on . . . your date of birth.  Old timers yearn for the days when the coach called the shots - even if Red Auerbach had to privately meet with Bill Russell and ask him to play along when Red yelled at Russ at practice because if he did, the rest of the guys would see Red was the boss.  This was in the day when winning took precedence over everything - including contracts, no-trade clauses, endorsement deals, personal stats.  Of course, Auerbach’s and Russell’s Celtic teams won every year so that strategy paid off handsomely - for one team in the league anyway.

Back then, there were no halftime extravaganzas, Kiss cams, tattooed players or agents.  Of course, there also weren’t chartered flights, three-point shots, NBA television network and smoking was allowed in the arenas.  In short, they weren’t the good old days as much as, merely, the “old days.”  It’s up to the individual to decide which days are good.  Or better.

What’s most disappointing about the Sloan situation is the post-announcement posturing, led by the coach himself who took the high road, a stance somewhat inconsistent with the way he normally confronted issues.  Definitely different from the way he played.  Jerry Sloan never backed down from a good battle.  Then again, maybe he was being completely honest, that it was “his time.”  Maybe the new breed of superstar (or even average player for that matter) had simply worn him down to where he realized these confrontations were no-win options.

That’s the indication the fan on the street gets when former players like John Stockton and Karl Malone make public statements regarding how highly they think of their old coach.  Each said they were surprised by his move and felt the word “quit” was something they’d never associate with their old boss.  Certainly not in the middle of the season.  Malone, when questioned about verbal player-coach battles when he was playing, openly admitted there were many, but maintained every player on the team knew who was in control and that person was the coach.

Woodard and Bernstein coined the phrase “non-denial, denial” when they reported on Watergate.  After hearing Williams’ response to Sloan’s retirement, that was the exact phrase that came to mind.  He didn’t deny the verbal disagreement he had with Sloan but claimed that, in no way was he attempting to give management an ultimatum.  Most damaging to Williams’ non-denial, denial was ESPN’s Chris Broussard, who has made his bones as the NBA’s leader in spreading gossip - and the nastier, the better.  Broussard, doing his best Stephen A. Smith impersonation, said that the removal of Sloan from the Jazz bench would be welcome to Williams, as would the promotion of assistant Tyrone Corbin who, as Broussard said, recommended different plays during games than those that Sloan did, but which Williams thought were better.  If ever something defined the difference between the old NBA and the new, that statement was it in a nutshell.

Fans of today’s NBA are witnessing superior athletes than those of yesteryear, yet a game that’s less team oriented than it was decades ago.  Some of this is due to rules changes and some of it is due to a change in culture.  Which is the better product is left to the viewer.  In the case of young fans, they don’t know any other style and seem to enjoy the game as much as their parents and grandparents did at their age.

When Pat Riley coached, he used to forbid his players from even talking to opponents before a game and actually fined them if they helped up an opposing player up after knocking them down.  Chatting it up when the teams take the court prior to formal warm ups is common place today.

Which side is right in the Jerry-Sloan-stepping-down argument?  As well respected as Jerry Sloan is, there certainly are many who will say that today’s players just don’t respect authority.  The flip side are those who state, as Thomas Jefferson (definitely classified as an old-timer) did:

“If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”

Still not anywhere near 100% health-wise (can’t remember when I was, it’s been so long, but the last week or so, the hurtin’s a shade - or two or three times - more than usual).  Here goes today’s blog attempt:

This just in from long-time loyal reader and Mission San Jose (Fremont, CA) HS boys’ basketball coach extraordinaire), Pete Vaz (be sure to check out his VAZBALL.com site):

“I just read the Lawrence Frank firing story.  Another guy that “lost his team.”  Isn’t this more proof that Jerry Sloan might be the greatest coach currently in the NBA????  Hasn’t lost his team, gets to call the shots, wins games….?”

Good point.  Better one might be having a Mormon owner (a compliment for all those over-sensitive, looking-to-make-a-stink, have-no-life-of-their-own-so-let’s-see-if-we-can-upset-someone-else’s types) who had reasonable expectations, gave his coach power and didn’t think if the team doesn’t win it all (even with Stockton and Malone), he shouldn’t maybe think of “going in a different direction.”  Always wondered if that different direction ever led anywhere worthwhile.

Larry Miller (who died this past February) was an owner who loved his team, players, staff, fans and, yes, his head coach.  He seemed to subscribe to Tom Metzger’s philosophy (which might be a stretch, but you’ll get the idea):

“Either we are going to solve this by realistic negotiation or there will be blood on the border.”

P.S. PLEASE, all of you lookin’ for a cause to rise up and challenge something or someone, do NOT attempt a Mormon-Catholic connection toward another current coaching opening.  Although, come to think of it, maybe Jerry Sloan would be interested in changing addresses from SLC to SB.

Nah, he’d be less than the Domers would demand (because, like the Jazz, he’d probably never win it all), but more than they deserved - since he would simply run the classiest operation in the land.�

Of the most recent inductees to the Basketball Hall-of-Fame (John Stockton, David Robinson, C. Vivian Stringer and, of course the G.O.A.T., MJ - see 9/12/09 blog), no one reminds the fans more of the common man than Jerry Sloan.

“Regular” people identify with the Jazz’s head man because of his “show up to work everyday, punch in, give a solid day’s effort and do it again tomorrow” attitude.  Here’s a guy who ranks near the top in total wins, winning percentage, number of 50-game winning seasons, consecutive winning seasons, number of trips to the playoffs and number of playoff wins, yet never has been voted NBA Coach-of-the-Year.  No wonder people who themselves feel unappreciated hold in such high regard the man dubbed “The Original Bull” for his having been the first player selected in the expansion draft by the Chicago Bulls. 

Ask most NBA fans about what Jerry Sloan is known for and, to a person, each and every one will say, aggressive, hustling, all-out defense.  So it might surprise some that one night, during his 11-year NBA career, Mr. D took 36 shots and scored 43 points!  Not that he wasn’t better known for his relentless defense, Sloan was selected to the All-Defensive First Team four times and had a career high 21 rebounds in a game.

Naturally, as low key a guy as Jerry Sloan is, he went to a Division II school, Evansville (currently D-I, but not when Sloan matriculated there), and just as naturally, he led them to two straight National Championships, being named Most Outstanding Player on both occasions.

But forget the other statistics, the one that’s the mind blower in this day and age is 20 consecutive years coaching one team - in the NBA!  This is a league that has had, since his hiring - get this! - over 200 head coaching changes.  It’s been said that the Hall-of-Fame is the ultimate honor for someone in their profession.

There couldn’t be too many people more deserving than Jerry Sloan and, when players, coaches and other NBA people speak of him, they say he seems to have the proper mind-set for coaching in the league - do as well as you can and don’t fret the things you can’t control (with the occasional referee rant excepted).  Sort of sounds like the 90-year-old man who, when asked the key to his longevity, said, with a twinkle in his eye:

“I reckon it’s because most nights I went to bed and slept when I should have sat up and worried.”

   �

NBA Playoff basketball is so great because you know you’ll see something you can’t always depend on during the regular season - all out effort (although what the Hornets did in Denver might refute that statement).

In these blogs, I try to let the reader come to his or her conclusion based on what I’ve posted.  Today, I’m deviating from that approach, only because I am so certain of what will happen in Game 2 of the LA-Utah series, I’m putting it into blogsphere for all to see.  Should I be way off base, then I open myself up for embarrassment and mockery on a world-wide level.  Of course, if it ever got to that point, I can always edit my remarks, even delete the blog, or claim I was misquoted (in my own blog - similar to Charles Barkley saying he was misquoted in his autobiography). 

Enough of all that.  Let’s get on with the prediction.  The Lakers will absolutely destroy the Jazz.  Here’s why: In Game One, no matter what the Jazz did, the Lakers answered.  “The Jazz just won’t go away!”  Announcers like to use that old lifeline (mainly because if a team did go away, the onus would be on the announcers to make a game with only one team in it sound interesting enough that people wouldn’t turn their TV’s off - and even with as much ego that often flows out of that group - and admittedly, I used to be one - nobody, with one or two exceptions, feels up to that task).

In Game One from the Staples Center, the Lakers weren’t ever worried about whether the Jazz would stay or go.  The Lakers didn’t even know the Jazz were there!  The game went as the Lakers had planned, i.e. get a lead and keep scoring. 

With Mehmet Okur out for the Jazz, the visitors were limited at both ends of the floor. First of all, Okur, although he’s a giant, may possibly be the best “pick-and-pop” man in the league - ever - (yeah, including Sabonis).  The Jazz’s big fella can really stroke it - and from deep.  But, if you listened to Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, he bemoaned Okur’s absence at the defensive end, because of his size versus the size of the Laker big men, meaning Utah would have to first sub for Okur and then, sub for Okur’s sub, sending the Jazz to places they’d hoped they’d never have to go - especially against a team as good as the prohibitive favorites to win it all.

The Jazz played as hard as they could and quite often, make big shots to keep the game relatively close.  It’s just that when they would make a big bucket, and they really needed a stop, they dug down . . . and the Lakers, not only would score, but make it look easy doing so.  In that same postgame interview, Sloan mentioned they weren’t as mean a team as he’d like, that they were still working on that aspect of their identity (if anyone’s old enough to remember Jerry Sloan, his version of “mean” probably differs from most people’s, including the members of his current squad).  Since we’re in the playoffs, it’s fairly safe to assume that what Sloan was referring to was next year’s version of the Utah Jazz, since if you’re not mean enough now, choosing to become so, in a best-of-seven series against the number one seed, is probably not a good starting point.

The Jazz can’t play much better on offense and, because of the Lakers’ pure talent (and the abundance of it), they can’t do much to stop the Purple and Gold offense (short of Sloan going back in a time machine and strapping it on himself - another thing guys don’t do anymore thanks to compression shorts), so it would seem like they’re doomed.  They’re not on the road where the hotel can make a “mistake” and the entire team come down with food poisoning prior to tipoff, so unless a case of the flu wipes out the top seven, make it eight guys from LA, there exists no chance for the guys from Salt Lake. 

Phil Jackson probably thought his club was flirting with disaster a little too much because he’s seen crazy things happen in all the time he’s been in the game, so he might remind his guys to step on it and focus at both ends, so the press conference is much more brief, allowing Jeannie and him to leave a little earlier for their nice, leisurely dinner somewhere on the marina.

I’m not sure whether even Jerry Sloan would want to be on a team with the task facing his squad, but I know he subscribes to the Frederick Douglass theory when faced with such tasks:

“If there is no struggle, there is no progress . . . power concedes nothing without a demand.  It never did and it never will.”

Herm Edwards of the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs just got fired, becoming the most recent professional head coach to lose his job.  It was about time for a coach to be fired.  After all, it was a entire day since Mark Iavaroni was pink slipped by the Memphis Grizzlies of the NBA.

People think the reason for firing a coach is he did a poor job and lost too many games. And they’re correct -partially.  However, there are other factors that come into play.  The reason it can’t just be losing is that many of the teams that just fired their coaches wouldn’t have won if Vince Lombardi or Red Auerbach, in their heydays, were coaching them.  Plain and simple, they were bad teams whose rosters were filled with bad players, players, for the most part, selected in the draft, free agency or through trades by the general manager.  Firing the coach “buys time” for the GM, shifting the blame to the head coach - and blame is what the fans, i.e. buying public, is most interested in.  “Oh, he was the culprit?  You know, I always thought so.  Off with his head.  Boy, now I can’t wait until next year.”

Another reason for the coach being fired, in several cases, is that his lack of success can be pinned on someone else - the owner, who simply made a poor management decision, by hiring the guy in the first place!  Every year, there are certain hires that raise the eyebrows of those “in the know,” i.e. the guys who have been around the game seemingly forever (mainly former coaches and, in some cases, media members) and can give a laundry list of reasons why the new man was the wrong man.  In all my years, I’ve yet to see these wise old vets wrong. 

Next up on the “reasons coaches get fired list” is the coach couldn’t get along with the players, or at least the players who had the owner’s (and possibly GM’s) ear.  The tag “franchise player” doesn’t refer only to playing skills.  This isn’t a new concept (unless you consider what Magic Johnson did to Paul Westhead as recent).

Another factoid, albeit one less frequent - a proven winner becomes available, i.e. the GM or owner hears from, say, Bill Cowher’s agent that his client is worried that his jaw is unclenching which can only mean he’d better get back into coaching and is there any truth to the rumor your coach’s contract won’t be renewed?  There is now.

Let’s talk reality and nothing talks reality better than numbers.  The number of NFL games in a year is 256, i.e. 16 (the number of games played by each team) times 16 (32 NFL teams with two teams playing in each game).  The overall record each year in the NFL is 128 wins and 128 losses.  Note: There was one tie this past year, so call the record 127-127-2.  So … when the Tennessee Titans went 13-3, somebody had to absorb those 10 losses to even out the slate.  Same goes for every other team posting a winning record.

In the NBA the numbers are 82 games played by 30 teams or an overall record of 615-615.  Currently, the Lakers, Celtics, Magic and Cavs are a combined 102 games over .500 and the season just passed the halfway point!  Can you start to understand now why seven of the 30 NBA head coaches have been fired already?  With rumors of possible changes in Detroit, Phoenix, New Jersey and, naturally, the Clippers?     

Former head man for the Houston Rockets and New York Knicks, Jeff Van Gundy, a very cerebral commentator, coach, individual (and being smart in one area does not necessarily mean you automatically qualify in the others) evaluated the current situation of the NBA coach’s life expectancy.  “Unless your name is Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, Jerry Sloan or Doc Rivers, if you lose three games in a row, you’re instantly on the hot seat.”  And, until last season, Doc’s seat was mighty warm.

If changing coaches can increase a team’s value, consider it done. Your fans will not put up with excessive losses.  Season-ticket renewals aren’t so easy in today’s economy. 

Yet, while fans must be placated, the people directly involved don’t want to come off as heartless.  Fishing reels aren’t spun as much as press conferences after a coach is let go.  Listen to a portion of the press conference when Tampa Bay fired Jon Gruden (who, although he was the coach when the Bucs won a Super Bowl, it was just too long ago).  “These decisions are never easy. This is the toughest decision you can make for an NFL franchise.  Jon (is a) consummate professional.  (He’s) poured (his) heart and soul into this franchise,” Buccaneers co-chairman Joel Glazer said. “It’s really been an honor to work with (him).”  Or this from the most recently deposed coach: “This was not an easy decision,” the KC’s boss, Clark Hunt, said. “Herm is an outstanding football coach and a man of integrity.”  Other terms of endearment are lines like: “____ is a great human being and we wish him the best in his future endeavors.  We just decided we needed to go in a different direction” (why didn’t they just give this wonderful humanitarian a compass)?  Or the ever popular, “We felt like we needed a different voice.”  Perfect, hire a ventriloquist - or, better yet, Rich Little.  Who has more voices than Rich?  Anytime a different voice is needed, bingo.  Talk about job security.

One item that’s never mentioned is the nice parting gift the outgoing coach receives.  Even if he only has one year left on his contract, like Herm Edwards, it’s usually for what his is - the last year of a 4-year, $12 million deal.  Herm ought to be able to make ends meet for a while - as long as he doesn’t run into a Bernie Madoff protege.

One thing I’ve never understood is coaching is one job where there are an overabundance of applicants (and with the law of averages being what it is, many of them must be highly capable), all of whom like money, but most of whom (the highly competent ones included) would take the position for a fraction of what teams are currently paying.  Sure, no one’s going to get a Bill Cowher at a bargain price, but it doesn’t seem like Mike Tomlin’s doing such a bad job in his absence (at about half the price).  I have no knowledge of this, but I’m pretty certain he would have taken the job for less (than the 4-year, $10 million he’s making).  He obviously (now) was the perfect fit and I’d be willing to bet he knew that - and only needed the opportunity.  Should the Steelers win the whole enchilada, he’ll be in for a new deal and a (BIG) raise.

My strong feeling is that coaches and players (although the union would be up in arms should it even be suggested) ought to be paid based on only two elements: wins and paid attendance.  No other stats will do because players will find ways to pad them (remember Dennis Rodman missing easy shots so he could get another rebound before he scored or the stories of him stealing rebounds from teammates just to up his total number of boards)?

Teams shouldn’t fear the untested coach.  Just make sure the proper research on him is done.  What he lacks in experience, he’ll more than make up for in enthusiasm, work ethic and energy.  “But the players won’t respect a guy who’s not making a ton of money,” the skeptics will cry.  Do you really think there’s a whole lot of respect right now?  Especially on these teams who are making coaching changes?  As former Princeton coach Pete Carril used to say everytime he’d hear the players complaining their coach’s firing was unjustified, that it was them on the floor and that they loved the guy, “If they really felt that way, they should have been playing harder for him during the season.”

It might be a giant risk, but what you’re doing now ain’t working, so as the saying goes:

“Don’t have your goal: to get to death safely.”  �