My favorite part watching a basketball game is to see how coaches communicate during timeouts. The brains of these coaches work quickly to come up with a play or an idea without them moving a single step. You see them rubbing their chin, writing on the clipboard, and hovering each other without muttering a syllable.
There are four types of coaching personalities that I notice: a dictator with a a messenger staff that answer to him, a star coach with a subordinate staff who know their roles, a leader who lets others shine in crucial moments, and an intense buddy system where one is looking out for the other.
The media likes to talk about players who are selfish and self-centered in sports. But I remember a quote from former coach Al McGuire: "A team should be an extension of a coach's personality." For instance, Orlando's Stan Van Gundy does not communicate with his assistants. He says, they follow. He does all the coaching and his staff just sit there and listen during timeouts. Yet his team got to the finals because of his attitude in believing that they can win. However, in the NBA Finals, his players in close games took bad shots at crucial moments. Stan lashed out on his staff and the players, but he didn't lash out on himself. To me, Van Gundy lost faith in himself. I mean, how did the players become so selfish so quickly?
On the other hand, Boston coach Doc Rivers communicated with his assistants from the beginning of the season with the 2008 Celtics. Doc got his assistants to share the pressure of coaching throughout the season. Sometimes they made good decisions and sometimes they made bad decisions. At playoff time, they reacted better and made clutch decisions at crucial times. Despite a close call in the first round against the Atlanta Hawks, the Celtics responded to playoff pressure because they trusted the head coach and his assistants to come up ready in all situations instead of expecting one lead coach to deal with all situations.
Meanwhile, Phil Jackson's teams always seem to win on the teamwork concept of coaches, but Phil seems to be more of a star than a leader. It reflects on the court. Michael Jordan and the Bulls. Kobe Bryant/Shaquille O'Neal and the Lakers. Now just Kobe. He gets the right coaches and let them do their jobs in a subordinate manner. He always seems to be wanting to make all the decisions so he can get the credit and glory. I'm bothered by Jackson's stubbornness in his losses in 2004 and in 2008 NBA Finals of not trying to defend the pick 'n roll by playing zone. I couldn't understand why his assistants didn't get him to adjust his defensive philosophy, but then I realized that it was "his way or the highway" persona when it comes to making adjustments. Can't argue with 10 championships under his reign.
On the other hand, winning and wins-losses are reflected on the head coach, not on the assistants. Likewise, if a great player is injured, it really doesn't matter. Sometimes you don't have many star players, but players who just work hard together like buddies. Jerry Sloan does a great job with his buddy system of assistant Phil Johnson in Utah. They each know what the other is thinking and react the same way. Both are very tense in every game, but can keep each other in check without burning each other out.
Another example is Larry Brown and his assistant coach brother, Herb, of the Charlotte Bobcats. When Larry had Herb as his assistant, they went to the NBA Finals and won a championship in 2004 with Detroit. The result is players who play hard for each other with intensity.
During timeouts, I look to see how the players respond to their coach. For instance, do I see a coach exude the "I'm holier than you" or "I'm the messiah and I'll die for you" attitude when talking to players? Likewise, do players turn their heads away or feel confused about what the coach has to say? In the next instance, do assistant coaches either step in or stay in their seats, looking at the court? Finally, do coaches communicate to each other when the team is playing well or when they're not? Maybe a little bit of both? There is no wrong way to coach, but as Al McGuire said, "A team should be an extension of a coach's personality."
December 16, 2009
J. T. Masaryk:
The full quote from Coach Al McGuire was:
“A team should be an extension of a coach’s personality. And my teams were always arrogant and obnoxious.”
People forget that Al McGuire was not the avuncular, funny broadcaster. Coach Al McGuire was flaky, and very combative.
McGuire’s career winning percentage was around .800. But most games were not on television, and if they were it was a syndicate of UHF stations, not ESPN. Hence, people don’t remember the punches, fingers and other antisocial antics.
I believe the adage about a team being an extension of a coach personality is very true in the NCAA. But in the NBA, it is a player’s game, and a coach’s job is to create a fecund environment, and minimize the mistakes. You do that, and let the stars do their thing.
Stan Van Gundy is a good coach with the potential to be outstanding. Phil Jackson is a savant because he only does his zen master act with superstars.
Why did Van Gundy’s Orlando’s club fall apart? Because Phil Jackson drew up a great defense, and Kobe Bryant implemented it, and the other guys followed suit by his example.
It had nothing to do with Van Gundy losing faith. It had to do with Kobe setting the tone for superior complementary guys to do their thing. The Lakers had better stars and a better team concept, subtly manipulated by Phil Jackson.
December 17, 2009
Davan S. Mani:
I think your comment says it all about Phil Jackson and what I believe about him.
My answer about Stan Van Gundy is you can’t beat the Zen Master by yourself. The point about the Zen Master is that his assistants don’t like to take lead. Yet, he is blaming his assistants and his players. Why didn’t he blame himself and say I’m not good enough to beat him going solo? It takes a team of players and coaches to beat the Zen.