Re: Sanity

["Cecil Wright" <cecil@hfx.eastlink.ca>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Kestas <Kestutis.Kveraga@Dartmouth.EDU>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sanity


> At 17:46 3/4/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >Speaking of silly, that's what it is to classify those guys as superior
> >coaches based of wins-losses.
>
> I classify them as superior coaches based on ALL the criteria I listed
> (i.e., jointly), not just wins-losses. I don't know why you're singling
out
>  the one criterion most susceptible to being confounded by things like the
> talent on their team, and then saying it's silly to use it in judging
> coaches.

Kestas,

You gave 3 specific items which you base coaching superiority on.  They were
the number of championships won, the W-L % and the respect from players and
coaches.  A large majority of people do not judge a coach based on the
amount of championships won because it is ultimately the players'
performance which decides the fate of the coach.  By your methods, Jerry
Sloan is not a superior coach simply because he has not won a title yet but
Greg Popovich would be since he has won one.  I already addressed your
respect issue.  That leaves on more of your criteria, W-L %, doesn't it?
You also mentioned Pitino's record in a previous post.  Nothing about the
other criterion.

>
> >A cadaver could have coached the Bulls after
> >Jordan matured as a player.  And having strong role-players was a huge
plus.
>
> Chicago won nothing with Doug Collins,

They had some pretty bad teams in those days don't you think?

 and 6 championships with Jackson.
> Can Jordan's maturity account for all of that?

Not all of it.  Surrounding him with complimentary talent was as important
as you feel Jackson's coaching was.

And why did he suddenly
> mature under Jackson? Just a coincidence, right?

After 5-6 years, he became a much more heady and mature player.  What's so
hard to understand?  Jackson came along at the right time.

And now Shaq has suddenly
> matured into an MVP-type player, which again just happened to coincide
with
> Jackson's arrival.  The fact that the Lakers turned into the best team in
> the NBA, after being a talented but inconsistent and directionless bunch,
> is also just a coincidence, no doubt.  That's a lot of coincidences there,
> don't you think?

After 5-6 years, Shaq has become a much more heady and mature player.
What's so hard to understand?  In addition, I think you have excluded the
importance of the play of their bench, which has been superb, not to mention
the play of KB.

>
> >Riley has been surrounded by talent during his 3 stints.  The universal
> >respect issue doesn't matter.  How many players don't maintain respect
for
> >their coach save for Rodman when the cameras and microphones are present?
>
> Players can, and do, say general, vaguely positive things about their
> coaches, when they don't have much to say about them, or don't want to say
> anything bad about them for fear of reprisals.

So you agree with me.

But when Shaq declares
> Jackson "a white version of my father", is he just "trying to maintain
> respect for [his] coach, when the cameras and microphones are present", as
> you say?

Doesn't sound like much of a comliment since Shaq supposedly didn't grow up
with a father and has little, if any, contact with the man.

Why do former players, who have nothing to fear, proclaim Jackson
> and Riley great coaches? Jordan, who surely had nothing to fear from the
> management, being able to de facto fire the coaches he didn't like,
> *refused* to play for anyone but Jackson after having been coached by him.

It doesn't take a genius to say "clearout for #23."  Perhaps Mikey liked
being coddled by Jackson.

> Jackson was able to channel Rodman's often self-destructive energies into
> helping the Bulls win a bunch of championships.

So did Chuck Daly.  Didn't Rodman marry himself while he was employed by da
Bulls?

Lots of coaches have been
> surrounded by talent - Del Harris &  Kurt Rambis were coaching the same
> Laker cast, lest you forget - but haven't gotten much out of the same
talent.
>

It takes time for the maturation process to take place.

> >You're arguments are terribly inconsistent.  One moment, it matters that
> >they are playing hard.  Now the wins, losses and respect of peers and
> >players matters.
>
> Who, and what, are you talking about?! Where did that come from? Who's
> they? What do they have to do with this discussion about good coaches?
>

Sorry.  I mistook you for someone who appreciates a team that, though young,
still plays hard.  The only thing that is preventing the C's from making the
playoffs is consistency.  It will come same as it did for other young teams
and players.

> >Yep, Pat Riley had an unforgettable career in the pros didn't he?  How
many
> >out there would say he was a good player?  Same for Jackson, who wasn't
the
> >worst player, but definitely not one who would have been remembered for a
> >stellar career.
>
> I didn't mention anything about stellar careers. By "good" I meant a
solid,
> smart player, but not a star, for stars, Bird and perhaps Wilkens
> notwithstanding, rarely make good coaches.
>

Perhaps you should be more explicit then.  I never mentioned anyone being a
star, did I?

> >But out the other side comes the but it's not always
> >necessary comment.  Bill Fitch, Larry Brown, George Karl, Dr. Jack
Ramsey,
> >Greg Popovich, Don Casey, Paul Westhead, Jeff Van Gundy, Flip Saunders
etc.
> >You would not have wanted them hired because their chances of success
would
> >be less according to your estimation because they weren't good players.
Don
> >Chaney was a good player.  Where's he now?
>
> Are you unable to think in terms of probabilities and there being several
> routes to the same end, or are you just trying to be difficult?

I am quite capable of thinking in terms of probabilities.  I am merely
disagreeing with you without calling any names or trying to use little
cliches.

It seems
> like you're attempting to "nail me down" with some ludicrous constraints -
> as if it could ever be true in the real world that one type of former
> players always become good coaches, and another type - never. All kinds of
> people can make good NBA coaches, but the probability rises with the
> accumulation of certain criteria, some of which I have mentioned. It is a
> stochastic process, and thus there no sure answers. That's why hiring
> mistakes like Calipari, Tarkanian and Pitino are made all the time -
people
> assume that if they were succesful in college, they'll successful in the
> NBA as well. Yet, if you exclude former successful college coaches from
> your search, you miss out on people like Larry Brown.
>

I am attempting to do no such thing.  Just replying to your message.  You
said  yourself that there are no sure answers, so why verbalize what you
think would be the criteria for the next Celtic coach?  The variance is too
great.

> >And as much as I like Doc, it is rather foolhardy to even mention him
since
> >he has less than a year of coaching experience.  Give him some time to
see
> >how things go down the road before annointing him a better coach than
> >others.
>
> Your arguments are terribly inconsistent. You chastise me above for
> allegedly relying on  a distinguished win-loss record in nominating  the
> good coaches, since, as you claim, their record is inflated because
they've
> been surrounded by talent throughout their careers. Yet here you admonish
> me for including Doc in the same category necessarily based on the OTHER
> criteria, since his win-loss record is short and unimpressive.
>
It is because he has had less than a full season as head coach.  I like Doc
and hope he proves to be a great coach.  But rushing to judgement about the
characteristics of a coach who is so inexperienced, does not make much sense
to me.  Using your rationale, he fails in 2 outta 3 categories.

Cecil