Jack’s Blog

Since Michael Jordan turned 50 this past Sunday, talk show hosts (and several other media members) felt it was necessary to raise the unanswerable question of “Who’s the best player of all-time?”  Naturally, because they are the two best current players (with Kevin Durant nipping at their heels), the argument shifted to who’s better between Kobe Bryant and LeBron James.

All the comments were made - Kobe has five rings, LeBron is at his prime with many years left to play dominate.  The debate is a necessary one - if you’re ten years old.  Maybe fifteen.  Anytime past that age, if you continue to play the “who’s better/who’s the best game,” you need to at least realize that there are no winners (and plenty of losers.

Kobe is sensational - skill set, mind set, defensive ability, personal drive and (which can be a negative, depending on how strong or fragile your teammates are) ability to demand/produce the best in your teammates.  MJ shared the exact same qualities.  Which is why Kobe has them - because, from the day he entered the league, he has modeled everything he does like Jordan.  Not just his play, which is sensational, but his mannerisms, his dealing with the media, his gait … his being.

LeBron can’t match those two because his skills, body, mental aspect - nothing - is like those two.  He’s 6′8″ and willing to admit to 250, with rumors as high as 280, and negligible body fat.  For that reason, people have tried to compare him to Magic.  LeBron is no Magic either, if for no other reason than Magic was a point guard and LeBron is not.  LeBron is the epitome of what Don Nelson used to call a point guard.  Magic ran the show and, when he shot, it was a set shot.  He could drive, but it usually ended with a pass or a layup, seldom a dunk.  LeBron is the show, shoots (real) jumpers, and when he drives, the result is … louder.  It still obtains the same desired results as Magic - Ws.

Sure, you can get into “rings,” what we used to call championships but what now needs to be defined as something you can wear and show off, as opposed to a something you were part of, that only a selected few can actually claim they “be” (as opposed to “have”).  So when the trump card in the Kobe vs. LeBron debate is five rings to one, the line LeBron used (oh so obviously created by one of his publicists), that if rings are the determining factor, then Bill Russell must be the best because he has 11 and Michael has six.”  Then, others had to be brought in besides Russell, e.g. Wilt Chamberlain, Jud Bueschler, Charles Barkley, Robert Horry, Reggie Miller, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing and a cast of characters from NBA past and present.

I’m on record as saying MJ is the G.O.A.T. but as far as Kobe versus LeBron, it’s too tough a call.  They’re waaaaaay different, each with their own strengths.  Kobe couldn’t have won as many without Shaq but Shaq couldn’t win as many without Kobe (even though they each did without each other).  LeBron couldn’t win without selecting his current teammates but, c’mon, he got to the Finals with the Cavs.  Have you ever checked that roster?  Closely checked it?  Had he won the whole thing with that group, the comparisons would be with Bill Walton and the Trailblazers.  Take LeBron off the Cavs and Walton off the Blazers and pit the remaining players against each other.  That finals would probably be the least watched in television history.  Definitely the most boring, lackluster series ever.

It’s been used before but John Harbaugh’s rule should be considered prior to anyone opening their mouth in the Kobe-LBJ discussion:

“I’ve got this rule.  We make no comparisons.  Somebody is going to be devalued.”

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.”

There have been so many times during (and since) my coaching career when I’d hear fans make some outrageous statement.  Same with columns by sportswriters or opinions by talk radio guys.  I was fully aware that they didn’t have the necessary information to make such a claim and that if they did, they’d quickly back track.  Not that they didn’t present a good argument in proving their point, they did.  It’s just that they looked at a situation from only one point of view - the one they obviously felt very strongly about.  I used to chuckle to myself and think, “Yeah, your point is well-taken, but you’re ignoring too many other facts - and if you knew them, you’d fully understand what’s going on.  And, then, I’d like to hear what you have to say.”

Now, I’ve gone over to that side.  The blog I posted yesterday was a prime example.  I didn’t like the Celtics when I was growing up.  It wasn’t so much because I was from New Jersey and the Knicks were my team - which they (kinda) were.  I think it was that I was much more of a baseball fan and the Dodgers were my passion as a youngster, meaning I hated the Yankees - mainly because they won all the time.  That’s why I rooted for the Celtics to lose.  Because they also won all the time.  Yet, I really admired their players - Russell, Cousy, the Jones boys, Havlicek, Heinsohn and, yeah, Don Nelson.

That admiration, coupled with thirty-five years in coaching, made the basis for my argument that the blame should be placed elsewhere for the Golden State Warriors’ incompetence.  In math we say, “If you start with a false premise, you can prove anything.”  And to that charge, I plead guilty.  This confession came after I was verbally assaulted by several of readers of this site, some of which are my friends, others are people who are much closer to the Warriors’ fiasco - either by proximity or working in the NBA itself.

The counter arguments go like this: 1) Nelson really does fashion himself as the mad scientist that media (and even some basketball) people have made him out to be, so starting a talented, bright, exactly-the-kind-of-kid-you-want-to-coach (Stephen Curry) one game and playing him two minutes the next, may enhance your reputation as a Dr. Jekyll, but it messes with a young man’s head (and, sudsequently damages the franchise, which, currently, is not exactly on the Forbes‘ list of the best run organizations in all of professional sports).  This is a young man whose his dad had a long career in the league (so he’s aware of coaches’ mind games) and who everybody (the brass, coaches and fans) hailed on draft day as a suoerstar in the making and see as one of the future stars of the organization (which is why they used their first round pick at #7 on him).  Then, to explain it with the witless comment of not having enough tattoos to start in the NBA, further shows he is coaching for two reasons: the money (the amount of which would be reason enough for most of us to hang around) and the all-time wins record (which he’s so close to, that if he sticks around long enough, he’s bound to get it).  In all, Nellie is simply masquerading as a coach and if, some stat-nerd found some wins that were overlooked, the addition of which would give him the record, and the owners agreed to give him all the money that’s left on his contract if he’d just retire, the only two words you’d hear from Nellie would be, “Mahalo and Aloha.”

Next up on the “Why the Warriors Are So Screwed Up” list would be: 2) the ownership.  After all, aren’t they the ones who gave the “disproportional to the amount of wins they’d bring to the team” contracts to the Liar (Ellis) and the Criminal (Jackson)?  See yesterday’s blog for an explanation to the aka’s.  That point, as with 1) above, is indisputable.

Reason Number 3 on the list is president Robert Rowell, who forced out fan favorite, former Warrior, original Dream Teamer and basketball man (from an administrative, not player, standpoint), Chris Mullin, for himself, someone who possesses none of the above.  Many of the inept basketball decisions have his fingerprints all over them.

While I still stand by the main theme of yesterday’s blog (the facts back me up), the conclusion I reached was wrong.  What I forgot to take into account was the line that my former boss and current friend and mentor, George Raveling, told me his grandmother used to say:

“There are more horses’ asses in the world than there are horses.”

Could that be the meaning of the phrase, “Whoa, Nellie?”   �

The Golden State Warriors are definitely a team in disarray.  Head coach Don Nelson is showing signs of frustration that can only be called, by any rational thinking person (which excludes most fans), long overdue.  After all, the main two culprits who set Nellie off are Stephen Jackson and Monta Ellis, two players whose talents are only exceeded by their salaries and lack of character.

Is Nelson wrong for publicly attempting to embarrass the players or speaking openly about wanting to trade either or both?  From the leadership tenet that says, “Praise in public; criticize in private,” absolutely.  But maybe because I spent more time coaching than playing (and was better at the former than the latter), I tend to side with a coach in matters such as these.  Or maybe it’s because I’m old enough to remember (and respect)Don Nelson as a pretty good player for the greatest NBA dynasty of all-time, the Boston Celtics of Red Auerbach.

Yet, being in Nellie’s corner in this instance is a stance I’d take if I’d never coached a day and didn’t know Don Nelson from Ozzie Nelson.  The two culprits who set the coach off are Stephen Jackson and Monta Ellis.  Whether or not a college education would have changed the attitudes of either player is something we’ll never know.  Because neither of them went to college.  Ellis committed to Mississippi State but chose to enter the draft instead, while Jackson took the more cerebral route, committing to Arizona, which wasn’t allowed to enroll him because he was academically ineligible.  Realizing academics are vitally important in a young person’s life, Jackson enrolled at Butler Community College - for one semester.  Then, he too, got drafted and, like his running mate, wasn’t selected until the second round.

Jackson and Ellis have much in common.  One bond is that each of them has served 30-game suspension, Jackson for his more-than-willing role in the NBA’s biggest black eye when it comes to players vs. fans - the brawl in Detroit when he went into the stands after some Pistons’ fans.  Regardless of provocation, players know (whether they are college educated or not) that going into the stands is off-limits.  Period.  He was contrite about that experience, claiming he learned from it.  However, what he learned must have been, when things turn ugly, you don’t fight.  You shoot!

Not two years after the brawl at The Palace, Jackson was leaving either church or a strip club when he got into an argument (doubtful it had anything to do with the preacher’s sermon) and after being struck by a car, Jackson fired several shots from a 9-mm pistol he had.  He claimed it was in self-defense; the prosecutor claimed otherwise and “Jack” wound up with a felony for criminal recklessness.  What does an NBA team do with someone lacking that much character?  Easy, sign him to a 3-year, $28 million contract. 

Ellis got his 30-gamer in a much more passive way.  After signing a 6-year, $66 million contract (wonder how many of the people who enrolled at MSU that year were making that kind of bread), Ellis was injured in a moped accident, tearing the ligaments in his ankle.  But if he admitted to that, he knew he’d be violating the terms in his contract because when you sign for that kind of cash, teams structure your contract with clauses to keep players from doing stupid things.

So Ellis did what anyone would have done, faced with the same set of circumstances.  He lied about it.  Said he hurt it playing pick-up ball.  Except the injury he sustained isn’t consistent with what he was telling his employers, i.e. the people who were paying him $11 million a year for the next 6 years!   There might be a course in the Bulldogs’ catalog about things like that.  Hey, a college degree has to be worth something.

The Warriors’ team leaders, going into the season, were a criminal and a liar, each of whom was drafted in the second round (meaning no guaranteed money) and were now bringing in major dollars - something like $20 mil/year between them.

Why are the Warriors (and particularly the man in charge of “leading” this group) having problems?  Partially becasue these two less than stellar individuals have publicly criticized their coach - another character trait NBA players (the good ones) learn.  But, in this case, I think it’s mainly because the two guys who were supposed to lead the way for the team don’t subscribe to Mark Victor Hansen’s line (and with their backgrounds, how could anyone ever expect them to):

“Your self-worth should never be tied to your net worth.”�