Jack’s Blog

There are two constants that viewers of NBA playoff games - or is it any game? - can count on.  One of them is players complaining to referees following fouls called on them.  Or fouls not called on guys guarding them.  Dwight Howard, Pau, Russell Westbrook, KD, Melo, Boozer, KG, Blake Griffin, Tim Duncan, Zach Randolph, LeBron, Bosh, and for all intents and purposes, every other player in the league.  Possibly, it’s because they’re embarrassed they missed a shot.  Or maybe they really got fouled and the ref missed the call.  Or it should have been a charge instead of a block - or a block instead of a charge.

Whatever the case, the following scenario is guaranteed.  The offended player gives the referee the stank eye, then mumbles (or louder and clearer) his displeasure.  Something like “It was a clean block”/”Didn’t you see him hit me?”  Occasionally, additional adjectives an adverbs find their way into the conversation.  In some cases, he will soon be donating money to the league.

The second constant is the refs don’t change their minds.  Larry Sanders of the Milwaukee Bucks put it best in the 4/15/13 edition of Sports Illustrated when he discussed his new found philosophy toward officials:

“What’s going on here?  I’m arguing with the ref, but he’s not the enemy.  Sometimes he makes good calls, sometimes he makes bad calls, but he never overturns his calls.  So what am I doing?”

Headed up to the Bay Area this weekend as Cal State Monterey Bay opens league play.  Younger son Alex is currently the team’s scoring leader at 17 ppg.  He gets his first collegiate start tonight.  The blog will resume on Tuesday.

The San Antonio Spurs were on a six-game road trip, having won the first five games when Spurs’ head coach Gregg Popovich decided to rest his Big Three - Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker (plus Danny Green).  He sent them home to rest because they had a big game coming up tomorrow (Sat) with Memphis and he wanted them at their best.

“Pop” is the longest tenured NBA head coach with the same team and is one of only five coaches who have won at least four championships.  No one doubts his ability to put a quality team on the court and give them every possible chance of winning.  Be it strategy, motivation, in-game and halftime adjustments or late game situations, he understands his job as well or better than anyone.

And therein lies the point of contention between his actions - which he sees as doing his job in the best possible way, i.e. win games and have a rested team free of injuries (if anyone can figure that out) come playoff time.  Even his title of President of Spurs Basketball connotes that his ultimate job each and every year he’s in charge is to win it all.  So what’s the problem?

David Stern is commissioner of the NBA and, as such, has no affiliation with any particular club.  His job is to build the NBA brand.  That’s why there are regular season games in Europe.  That’s why there’s so much individualization (even though, technically, it’s a team game), i.e. endorsements and commercials being encouraged.  It’s a league of stars - so put your stars front and center.  That’s why the NBA picks up the tab for the WNBA - even though that’s a losing venture year after year after year.  Stern realizes the WNBA losses are (relatively) insignificant compared to having the image of (financially) promoting women’s basketball.  Since women make up half of the population, why not cater to them too?  (Or at least don’t upset them).

That’s exactly the point.  David Stern is a servant to the public.  He needs giant corporations to buy luxury boxes and huge blocks of tickets.  He needs television and its _illions (fill in the first letter or two) of dollars - which they can give because the demand to see games is so high because of its superstars.  He needs the family of however many to take in a game.  He needs fans purchasing NBA souvenirs, memorabilia and gear (which mainly happens to be that of the superstars).

The argument I’ve heard why Pop was wrong is because of the young kid who whose dad saved up so they could go to one game - to see the boy’s idol.  Sounds nice and that’s true - in fairy tales.  What about the guy who’s head of a multi-_illion dollar company, who’s trying to seal a deal with another guy who owns a multi-_illion dollar company, and knows the guy has a man crush on whomever (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker) and says, “C’mon, let’s go to the Heat-Spurs game.  I’ve got a couple court-side seats.  We’ll check out these guys up close.”  That is what Stern dreads.  All of it is what Stern dreads.

It’s “Stern needs to keep the game as pure as the driven snow” vs. “Popovich needs to figure out the best way to win it all.”  Harken back to the days of yore when guys flew commercially - or went by train - and for a lot less dough.  The NBA Players Association has a strong union.  Players are making enough money that 90% of them ought to be able to retire comfortably if they had a morsel of decent financial advice.  They must stay at luxury hotels.  There have been stories about guys bitching because they had to stay at a Marriott - of all godforsaken places - when they first went to Oklahoma City.  Per diem is $125 even though some meals are catered. e.g. on the (private) plane.  It is written in the collective bargaining agreement that, during the season, players must have so many days off.  This is, obviously, an injury-prevention measure and a wise one.

What Pop did was not against the rules.  At the very least, though, he should have had communication with Stern prior to making the move.  Nearly ten years ago, I heard an educator, Dr. Bertice Berry, say something that I think applies here - because in the end, it’s the consumer who’s paying for the way for the NBA:

“There’s a big difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”

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.”

Early in the NBA season we were hearing the experts pontificate about the Spurs and how their advanced age would preclude them from a(nother) championship, i.e. that their run on titles was, unfortunately, a thing of the past.  The fact that their Big Three, Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli, were all past the prime age it takes for an extended number of playoff games.

After Duncan’s 26 point, 18 rebound, 8 assist performance in a 104-95 victory last night (after trailing by 11 at halftime) against the Toronto Raptors some of those comments may have to be rescinded.  The Spurs know how to win, have a coach who understands pacing during the regular season and possess the necessary chemistry among new players, veterans and coaching staff.  Yet, they’re on (to date) such a roll, they’re the owners of the best record in the NBA as we approach the mid-season All-Star break.

Parker continues to knock down back-breaking shots and Ginobli, while continuing to go balder, hasn’t seem to have lost any vital component of his game.  Richard Jefferson understands his role better and DeJuan Blair is the perfect complement to this seasoned crew.  Meanwhile, Duncan’s skill set hasn’t gotten older as much as its matured.

They’re too old?  San Antonio probably views that question with the same perspective Madame de Stael did:

“As we grow in wisdom, we pardon more freely.”

The San Antonio Spurs have been playing the best basketball in the NBA.  At the start of the season most prognosticators wrote off the Spurs as “too old.”  True, their “Big Three” of Tony Parker, Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobli have been together for about nine years, but under the guidance of Gregg Popovich, monitoring their minutes (even at the risk of losing a game), San Antonio has been playing as well as any club in the league.

Duncan was interviewed by a reporter about their latest victory.  After a minute or so, the scribe wanted to know if Duncan thought this team bore any resemblance to their championship teams.  Tim answered that they were playing well so far, and that staying injury-free, to this point, was a contributing factor.  Naturally, the reporter pushed further (most believe their job is to take every interview to the limit), asking The Big Fundamental whether could they win it all.  Duncan,  ever the consummate pro and seasoned veteran, simply said that it was too early to make any predictions and that they’d just have to let the season play out.  After all, the season is not even halfway over.

Listening to this interview I could only think of the line:

“The only exercise some people get is jumping to conclusions.”

Loyal reader - and friend - Clarence Gaines posted a comment regarding my lesson #3 of what we can learn about LeBron’s decision.  I said, “He simply doesn’t realize that a true superstar has the courage to take whatever hand (or roster) is dealt him and make them into not only big winners, but champions, a la MJ and Larry Bird.”

My point was that, although MJ and Larry joined down franchises, they stayed with each until they won multiple championships.  Clarence’s research revealed that, while the Celtics won only 29 games the year before Bird got there, they won 61 games in his rookie season - and then acquired McHale & Parish which ignited their championship runs.  His comment was that Bird didn’t really suffer through several seasons with inferior talent.  Point made.

His comment jarred my memory of a quote I heard a couple days ago, but had forgotten until it was replayed last night on SportsCenter.  It was by Dwayne Wade regarding all the criticism directed toward the newest Big 3.  Before repeating his quote, let me bring up another statement made by D-Wade.

During the Rachel Nichols interview, Wade made the rather bold statement that he LeBron and Bosh are “arguably the best trio who ever played the game of basketball.”  Whoa!  A little too much Miami heat?  How about 1) Magic, Kareem & Worthy, 2) Bird, McHale & Parish, 3) Russell, Cousy & (pick one of the Hall-of-Famers: either of the Jones, Ramsey, Sharman, Havlicek, Heinsohn), 4) West, Baylor & Chamberlain?  Sure, the last trio never won a championship but that wasn’t the question.  Plus, Wade’s nominee hasn’t won a game yet.  Putting Rodman in with MJ and Pippen might be a stretch, just as including Duncan, Parker & Ginobli might be reaching, but to anoint the Heat threesome to number one all-time is quite premature.

Oh yeah, Wade’s quote regarding the “haters”?

“I just don’t like false reports . . . At least get it right.”    �

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.”

 �

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.” �

Larry Brown has made the statement that he doesn’t know whether his Charlotte Bobcats can actually beat the Orlando Magic.  Many in the field of psychology would be appalled if they heard the leader of a group say something that would plant a seed of doubt in his team.  Being the underdog in the series, you’d think the coach would try to bolster the confidence of his club.

Why, then, would Brown make a comment like that?  My guess is that what Larry Brown said is exactly what he believes - and he’s been around long enough and has had so much success that he feels it would be foolish to try to play mind games or use some other psychological ploy.  As Charles Barkley (another who’s been known to speak frankly) pointed out, if Charlotte is to win (a game), the Bobcats need someone to have an other-worldly experience in terms of point production, because the Magic, who had five players in double figures in their game two victory, simply have too much firepower for Charlotte.

In the first two games, Dwight Howard, aka Superman, had subpar production, mainly due to foul trouble, yet the Bobcats never even posed a threat.  In game two, they scored a mere 30 points in the first half.  Their defense, or rather their half-court offensive philosophy of walking the ball up the floor on each possession, limited Orlando to only 41 points themselves.    

Gregg Popovich called his team out after their game one defeat in Dallas.  He said the Spurs played “like dogs.”  Whoa!  Psychology majors are in for a real challenge trying to analyze these two veteran coaches.  None of the players for San Antonio, though, when questioned, took exception with their coach’s comments.  And wouldn’t you know it, the Spurs came out in the second game and played like gangbusters, jumping to a 9-0 start and never looking back, leading by as much as twenty points.

The game did get close, however, when the Mavs cut the lead to five in the fourth quarter but eight straight points by ageless Tim Duncan squashed any hopes the hometown club had on sweeping the opening two games.  Not surprisingly, Duncan made no mention of his desire to prove to Pop he wasn’t a dog in the post-game press conference.

Both Larry Brown and Gregg Popovich have grabbed the brass ring - on more than one occasion - Brown claiming an NCAA national championship (Kansas) and a World Championship (Detroit) and Pop winning multiple titles with the Spurs.  Then why did Pop’s psychology work better than Larry’s?  I’ve done a great many of these blogs in which I’ve stated Jerry Tarkanian’s philosophy of coaching (click on the “Jerry Tarkanian” category and you’ll be sure to find it mentioned on numerous occasions).  “Talent” is always Tark’s reply.   

There’s an old saying that sums up why Charlotte couldn’t do to Orlando in game two what San Antonio did to Dallas (even though each is a #7 seed playing a #2).  Substituting for the chicken products that Charles Barkley - The Round Mound of Rebound - or, as he might now be referred to following Tuesday night’s TNT broadcast, the Prince of Profanity - would use in the old adage, the message is:

“You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”