O'Brien's success

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

It may be an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, but I think this
exchange fails to take into account a few key aspects of why Pitino failed
so miserably and his former assistant has been able to succeed with
essentially the same roster.

Mark is right in saying that Pitino wasn't just negative. (But pleeeease,
don't ever compare Pitino to Red ever again - gag!) If Pitino's problem was
just negativity the team would have responded better. Pitino was extremely
inconsistent - particularly in his player evaluations. By this I mean as a
coach, not just a GM. He was SO inconsistent that it completely eroded my
confidence in his judgment - and by extension I suspect it also eroded the
players' confidence in his judgment.

Furthermore, his inconsistencies were often very self-serving. The whole
"well I meant it when I said it" line of thinking infected not just the
evaluation of the players but eventually every aspect of his regime -
including his initial decision to take Gaston's money and usurp Red's title.
It seemed clear by the end that Pitino's concept of the team began with a
"P" and ended with an "O" if you get my drift. Great for building team
morale - particularly when coupled with oft-repeated threats to just pack it
in and quit <heavy sarcasm>.

Finally, along with an almost childishly whimsical inconsistency regarding
his responsibilities towards others within the organization there was -
surprisingly enough - a great deal of strategic inflexibility (again just in
regard to his coaching). Pitino refused to adapt his strategies to the pro
game. Or if he did then he refused to adjust his initial adaptations. In
this respect he quit coaching hard long before any player quit playing hard.
Instead he appeared determined to win either his way or not win at all. In
the end he took no responsibility for failure but instead fed the myth that
Mark conjures up of spoiled, sulking, sour athletes doing the uber-coach in
behind his back. This didn't surprise me and I'd guess it came as no
surprise to most of the players as well. I wouldn't say losing didn't bother
him but I think in a sense Pitino chose losing rather than admitting the
need to change his pet strategies. Losing he could palm off on the players
whereas admitting his strategies had failed would be an open admission of
his own share of responsibility for the fiasco. The difficulties Pitino
faced as an NBA coach were no different than those faced by 28 other
coaches. I find it hard to believe that Pitino's players were in any way
remarkable in terms of their lack of conditioning during the lock-out season
on in any other essential respect. The key difference was in how Pitino
dealt with a situation that in actuality was far from hopeless (as shown by
OBrien's success).

What I saw at the end of Pitino's regime was a group of players who by and
large worked as hard as possible but simply no longer believed. If there was
a mutiny it was along the lines of the "Caine mutiny" where the commander
systematically destroyed any loyalty and faith the crew had in him through
consistently bad judgment compounded by a tendency to lash out vindictively
(and unpredictably) in response to failure. O'Brien may not be the brightest
bulb in the candelabra but his success has demonstrated that under Pitino
the biggest problem with this team was not the talent level or the attitude
of the players (as Pitino and Mark would have us believe) but rather the
destructive egoism of Pitino himself (as Kestus IMHO rightly asserts). At
least a few of us openly wondered how good this team could be without Pitino
obstructing their progress and I must say that I am quite pleased at how the
team has responded (and to see my prediction for this year exceeded by at
least 10 wins!!).

Cheers - TomM

> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:27:20 -0400
> From: "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V9 #113
>
> Kestas, I just don't think Pitino's methods were all that different from
> guys like Pat Riley or George Karl or Bill Parcells. I'm not talking about
> his GM ability or even game strategy-just his methods of dealing with
> players. He wasn't Bobby Knight-like. He wasn't abusive. Coaches yell. Red
> yelled. Parcells yelled. Riley yells. The difference, in my opinion, was
> that Pitino had a young team and Riley and Karl deal with veteran teams.
> What had the Celtic players accomplished up to that point? Can we agree
that
> Pitino's first team drastically overachieved? Then he was hit with the
> lockout and the whole damn team, including the "veteran all-star" came in
> out of shape and played terrible. Why shouldn't Pitino have been hard on
> them? Antoine was immediately rewarded with a max contract after the
> lockout, then rewarded Pitino by showing up out of shape and playing
lousy.
>
> You mention George Karl... The difference is that his players gave him a
> chance and he blasted them even when they were winning. Pitino was tough
on
> his guys when they were out of shape and playing for stats-and losing. And
> the solution to that was "shut up and let them play?"  You know, he also
had
> some of the most positive quotes about some of these players. He tried
> positive reinfocement when they played well. Some of his quotes about
> Antoine were Obie-esque. But he also was critical when Antoine deserved
it.
>
> I'm willing to give the players credit for growing up. They have. But I'm
> not lumping everything on Pitino. He was a big part of it, but the players
> played a significant role.
>
> And one last thing... I don't expect these guys to be perfect, but if
> they're making $9 million a year, I expect them to work hard. I don't
think
> that's too much to ask. I have a hard time mustering a lot of sympathy for
> their plight. These guys have worked hard this year, but that hasn't
always
> been the case.
>
> Mark
>
>
> - --- --- ---
>
> Kestas wrote:
>
> What about the way Pitino treated the players, Mark? You're always harping
> about how Pitino was mistreated and sabotaged by the players. Ask
yourself -
> if
> you had been in their place, or if you had a boss like that, would you
have
> 'gone through the wall' for him? If you would have, you probably think
Bobby
> Knight was mistreated by his players, too.
> Why do you think players back Obie so much? Because he treats them like
> adults,
> with respect and dignity. He stands up for them no matter what, he never
> publicly blasts a player for anything, never questions their motivation.
> Look at what's happening to Milwaukee - the players got tired of Karl's
act
> and
> they quit on him. Can you blame them? Maybe you can, but I can't.
> Some coaches just can't figure out what Obie has realized in his short
stint
> in
> the NBA, or knew all along.