How does the 1960's change had Alex Hannum coached Russell and Red coached Wilt.

[coastalmarker99]

Both Red and Alex are top 5 coaches of all time in my mind.


So it makes me wonder who would be the more successful coach in this hypothetical scenario.


Hannum gets to coach Russell's Celtics from 1960 to 1968.


Red gets to coach Wilt's teams from 1960 to 1968.

I think Red most likely would be the more successful coach in this hypothetical scenario.

As he would have bought out the best of Wilt's all-around game right from the start of his career.

Which could be enough to swing at least some of those close losses to Boston in the 76ers and Warriors' favour.

[Doctor MJ]

Both Red and Alex are top 5 coaches of all time in my mind.


So it makes me wonder who would be the more successful coach in this hypothetical scenario.


Hannum gets to coach Russell's Celtics from 1960 to 1968.


Red gets to coach Wilt's teams from 1960 to 1968.

I think Red most likely would be the more successful coach in this hypothetical scenario.

As he would have bought out the best of Wilt's all-around game right from the start of his career.

Which could be enough to swing at least some of those close losses to Boston in the 76ers and Warriors' favour.

I’m a bit confused here because I don’t see any real indication that Auerbach was better at coaching all around basketball from a big man than Hannum.

If we just asked how Wilt would if he had Hannum from Day 1, would this accomplish the same thing for Wilt? If not, what specifically are you imagining Auerbach would do that Hannum wouldn’t?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eminence]

Does Wilt also get GM Red?

[Johnlac1]

Auerbach was worlds ahead of most other coaches for about ten years. Hannum was the first NBA coach other than Auerbach to realize the importance of defense.
In those days most coaches had no idea of an organized offense or defense. Auerbach's Celtics teams with Russell not only always led the league in defense, they almost always finished first in pace. They won many games in the fourth quarter just wearing teams down.
Auerbach was something like Vince Lombardi in football with the Packers. Lombardi's Packers finished either first or second in fewest points allowed each year he was with them. Lombardi concentrated on fundamentals and making few mistakes.
Auerbach's Celtics were no 1 in defense almost every year with Russell. Even when Russell took over as player-coach, the Celtics were either no 1 or 2 in defense. The only year they finished 2nd was to Hannum's Sixers in '68.
Would Hannum have been as smart as Auerbach in having a good system and acquiring players to fit his system? Auerbach remains the greatest combination coach, GM that I've ever seen. He was always able to acquire the players he needed to win championships in four separate decades.
I think Hannum, recognizing the importance of defense, would have done a better job with a Russell-led Celtics than many other coaches.
The Celtics also had quite a bit of luck winning 11 full game series with Russell. Would Hannum have had the same luck? Who knows.

[Doctor MJ]

Auerbach was worlds ahead of most other coaches for about ten years. Hannum was the first NBA coach other than Auerbach to realize the importance of defense.
In those days most coaches had no idea of an organized offense or defense. Auerbach's Celtics teams with Russell not only always led the league in defense, they almost always finished first in pace. They won many games in the fourth quarter just wearing teams down.
Auerbach was something like Vince Lombardi in football with the Packers. Lombardi's Packers finished either first or second in fewest points allowed each year he was with them. Lombardi concentrated on fundamentals and making few mistakes.
Auerbach's Celtics were no 1 in defense almost every year with Russell. Even when Russell took over as player-coach, the Celtics were either no 1 or 2 in defense. The only year they finished 2nd was to Hannum's Sixers in '68.
Would Hannum have been as smart as Auerbach in having a good system and acquiring players to fit his system? Auerbach remains the greatest combination coach, GM that I've ever seen. He was always able to acquire the players he needed to win championships in four separate decades.
I think Hannum, recognizing the importance of defense, would have done a better job with a Russell-led Celtics than many other coaches.
The Celtics also had quite a bit of luck winning 11 full game series with Russell. Would Hannum have had the same luck? Who knows.

I'm skeptical that Auerbach was a defensive visionary for 2 reasons:

1. I don't see anything in NBA Auerbach's coaching career from 1946-1956 that he was the dominant defensive strategist of the time.

2. Because from what I can tell, Auerbach tried to let Russell be the Russell who dominated the game his way - primarily as a defender.

I don't consider myself an Auerbach skeptic - I think he wanted his team to be better at defense, saw potential in Russell, and did great work adapting around Russell once he got him - but to me this is not the same thing as proof that he definitively had an understanding of defense a decade ahead of everyone else.

I'll also say that one of the execs of the Lakers at the time said that the Celtics almost traded for Vern Mikkelsen instead, and only looked toward Russell after the Laker owner decided not to trade Mikkelsen. (Same exec says he was pushing the Lakers to trade Mikkelsen and to go get the two-time NCAA POY & Champion Russell as their "new Mikan", which of course should be taken with a grain of salt, but at the very least it makes clear that in the minds of contemporaries, they would not concede that Auerbach alone saw the value of defense.)

Thoughts? Are there more things you're aware of that perhaps I'm blind to?

[penbeast0]

My question with Hannum is did he burn out relationships. Would he have lasted for a decade or more with the Celtics and had a good long term relationship with Red? I'm not as impressed as some with Red as a coach but he lasted forever in Boston even after he retired as coach and all the Celtics seemed to have positive relationships with him (though very few opponents!).

I have Larry Brown as one of the top coaches of all time, but in terms of winning 10 rings with a single team, he drops WAY down the list.

[Johnlac1]

Auerbach was worlds ahead of most other coaches for about ten years. Hannum was the first NBA coach other than Auerbach to realize the importance of defense.
In those days most coaches had no idea of an organized offense or defense. Auerbach's Celtics teams with Russell not only always led the league in defense, they almost always finished first in pace. They won many games in the fourth quarter just wearing teams down.
Auerbach was something like Vince Lombardi in football with the Packers. Lombardi's Packers finished either first or second in fewest points allowed each year he was with them. Lombardi concentrated on fundamentals and making few mistakes.
Auerbach's Celtics were no 1 in defense almost every year with Russell. Even when Russell took over as player-coach, the Celtics were either no 1 or 2 in defense. The only year they finished 2nd was to Hannum's Sixers in '68.
Would Hannum have been as smart as Auerbach in having a good system and acquiring players to fit his system? Auerbach remains the greatest combination coach, GM that I've ever seen. He was always able to acquire the players he needed to win championships in four separate decades.
I think Hannum, recognizing the importance of defense, would have done a better job with a Russell-led Celtics than many other coaches.
The Celtics also had quite a bit of luck winning 11 full game series with Russell. Would Hannum have had the same luck? Who knows.

I'm skeptical that Auerbach was a defensive visionary for 2 reasons:

1. I don't see anything in NBA Auerbach's coaching career from 1946-1956 that he was the dominant defensive strategist of the time.

2. Because from what I can tell, Auerbach tried to let Russell be the Russell who dominated the game his way - primarily as a defender.

I don't consider myself an Auerbach skeptic - I think he wanted his team to be better at defense, saw potential in Russell, and did great work adapting around Russell once he got him - but to me this is not the same thing as proof that he definitively had an understanding of defense a decade ahead of everyone else.

I'll also say that one of the execs of the Lakers at the time said that the Celtics almost traded for Vern Mikkelsen instead, and only looked toward Russell after the Laker owner decided not to trade Mikkelsen. (Same exec says he was pushing the Lakers to trade Mikkelsen and to go get the two-time NCAA POY & Champion Russell as their "new Mikan", which of course should be taken with a grain of salt, but at the very least it makes clear that in the minds of contemporaries, they would not concede that Auerbach alone saw the value of defense.)

Thoughts? Are there more things you're aware of that perhaps I'm blind to?

Auerbach would obtain and use tough defensive players like Satch Sanders and K.C. Jones for sixth men rather than just trying to get more offense.
Auerbach wasn't necessarily a totally defensive minded coach, but he knew what it took to win, and knew a team organized around Russell's defensive talents combined with other elements like other good defensive players and a high pace meant wins/titles.
Maybe other coaches could have utilized Russell's talents as well as Auerbach did, maybe not. But like Lombardi in football, Auerbach kept to fundamentals and doing a few things very well rather than just letting guys play which is what many coaches from that era did. Red Holtzman was another coach from that era who parlayed tough defense and basic basketball into championships.

[ceiling raiser]

I think having Hannum from day one would help Wilt more tbh.

[Doctor MJ]

Auerbach was worlds ahead of most other coaches for about ten years. Hannum was the first NBA coach other than Auerbach to realize the importance of defense.
In those days most coaches had no idea of an organized offense or defense. Auerbach's Celtics teams with Russell not only always led the league in defense, they almost always finished first in pace. They won many games in the fourth quarter just wearing teams down.
Auerbach was something like Vince Lombardi in football with the Packers. Lombardi's Packers finished either first or second in fewest points allowed each year he was with them. Lombardi concentrated on fundamentals and making few mistakes.
Auerbach's Celtics were no 1 in defense almost every year with Russell. Even when Russell took over as player-coach, the Celtics were either no 1 or 2 in defense. The only year they finished 2nd was to Hannum's Sixers in '68.
Would Hannum have been as smart as Auerbach in having a good system and acquiring players to fit his system? Auerbach remains the greatest combination coach, GM that I've ever seen. He was always able to acquire the players he needed to win championships in four separate decades.
I think Hannum, recognizing the importance of defense, would have done a better job with a Russell-led Celtics than many other coaches.
The Celtics also had quite a bit of luck winning 11 full game series with Russell. Would Hannum have had the same luck? Who knows.

I'm skeptical that Auerbach was a defensive visionary for 2 reasons:

1. I don't see anything in NBA Auerbach's coaching career from 1946-1956 that he was the dominant defensive strategist of the time.

2. Because from what I can tell, Auerbach tried to let Russell be the Russell who dominated the game his way - primarily as a defender.

I don't consider myself an Auerbach skeptic - I think he wanted his team to be better at defense, saw potential in Russell, and did great work adapting around Russell once he got him - but to me this is not the same thing as proof that he definitively had an understanding of defense a decade ahead of everyone else.

I'll also say that one of the execs of the Lakers at the time said that the Celtics almost traded for Vern Mikkelsen instead, and only looked toward Russell after the Laker owner decided not to trade Mikkelsen. (Same exec says he was pushing the Lakers to trade Mikkelsen and to go get the two-time NCAA POY & Champion Russell as their "new Mikan", which of course should be taken with a grain of salt, but at the very least it makes clear that in the minds of contemporaries, they would not concede that Auerbach alone saw the value of defense.)

Thoughts? Are there more things you're aware of that perhaps I'm blind to?

Auerbach would obtain and use tough defensive players like Satch Sanders and K.C. Jones for sixth men rather than just trying to get more offense.
Auerbach wasn't necessarily a totally defensive minded coach, but he knew what it took to win, and knew a team organized around Russell's defensive talents combined with other elements like other good defensive players and a high pace meant wins/titles.
Maybe other coaches could have utilized Russell's talents as well as Auerbach did, maybe not. But like Lombardi in football, Auerbach kept to fundamentals and doing a few things very well rather than just letting guys play which is what many coaches from that era did. Red Holtzman was another coach from that era who parlayed tough defense and basic basketball into championships.

I'm reluctant with the comparison as you've put it.

Red Auerbach ran the basketball decision making on the Boston Celtics, and he also coached.

Ron Kerner ran the basketball decision making on the St. Louis Hawks, and he hired coaches, including Red Holzman who coached them to a 14-19 record in '56-57 before Hannum took over, and the team rallied to take the Celtics to 7 games in the finals that year, and then the franchises only NBA championship the year after.

In an SI article Kerner was quoted as explaining:

"I had to replace Red," Kerner explains. "The club was way down. Red was way down. It was just that sometimes you lose the grip."

So don't get me wrong I think both Reds were great coaches - I'd generally call them the best and 3rd best coaches of the era - but Hannum was a monstrously successful coach, coaching 3 different franchises to championships while also having a stint coaching Wilt on the Warriors in which the team took its biggest leap forward.

And none of that is the same thing as being the basketball exec.

Last funny note:

Auerbach had actually previously been hired by Kerner to coach and the franchise (then the Tri-City Blackhawks) for a single season. Auerbach quit when Kerner then went ahead and made a trade on his own (that Auerbach did not want).

This to say, even if Hannum had gotten Kerner to say "Stay and I'll give you complete control of the team", Kerner clearly was not to be trusted as a hands-off owner.

[Johnlac1]

I see Auerbach's greatness in creating championship teams over three decades. He won with Russell in the fifties with Cousy being a gunner who took the most shots while shooting the lowest fg percentage of the starters. Cousy was a great passer and great for establishing the pace but highly overrated in the scheme of things.
After Cousy, Sharman, Ramsay, Heinsohn retired the Celtics still won titles with Russell as the focal point. He chose John Havlicek after the first eight teams bypassed him in the 1962 draft. Havlicek and Dave Cowens were the key players in the Celtics title teams from the seventies.
Then he chose Larry Byrd when five other teams bypassed him in the 1978 draft.
Auerbach knew what it took to win and he knew how to get the players to help him win.
The only real mistake he made as a GM was shipping Paul Westphal off to Phoenix after Westphal mostly rode the bench his three years in Boston. His first year in Phoenix he became one of the best guards in the league and led the Suns to the finals where ironically they were defeated by Boston.
I don't know of any coach who did what Auerbach did over that length of time.

[penbeast0]

I see Auerbach's greatness in creating championship teams over three decades. He won with Russell in the fifties with Cousy being a gunner who took the most shots while shooting the lowest fg percentage of the starters. Cousy was a great passer and great for establishing the pace but highly overrated in the scheme of things.
After Cousy, Sharman, Ramsay, Heinsohn retired the Celtics still won titles with Russell as the focal point.

And then the Celtics won two more championships after Red quite coaching and was replaced by Russell, and then two more with Heinsohn as coach in the 70s (plus 2 more in the 80s under KC Jones).

He chose John Havlicek after the first eight teams bypassed him in the 1962 draft. Havlicek and Dave Cowens were the key players in the Celtics title teams from the seventies.
Then he chose Larry Byrd when five other teams bypassed him in the 1978 draft.
Auerbach knew what it took to win and he knew how to get the players to help him win.
The only real mistake he made as a GM was shipping Paul Westphal off to Phoenix after Westphal mostly rode the bench his three years in Boston. His first year in Phoenix he became one of the best guards in the league and led the Suns to the finals where ironically they were defeated by Boston.
I don't know of any coach who did what Auerbach did over that length of time.

Any coach or any GM. I think you can make a much stronger case for Red as the greatest GM of all time than you can for greatest coach. Great coach yes, better GM in my opinion, could other people have done what Red did as a coach over his full career? Maybe, he did keep everyone on the same page for 13 years and that's certainly not easy. I think over a year, Hannum is the better coach. Over a decade, I'm not sure Hannum wouldn't wear on nerves and lose his players. We know Red managed a run of 9 rings over his two decades with Boston; no one else has matched that run.

[Doctor MJ]

I see Auerbach's greatness in creating championship teams over three decades. He won with Russell in the fifties with Cousy being a gunner who took the most shots while shooting the lowest fg percentage of the starters. Cousy was a great passer and great for establishing the pace but highly overrated in the scheme of things.
After Cousy, Sharman, Ramsay, Heinsohn retired the Celtics still won titles with Russell as the focal point. He chose John Havlicek after the first eight teams bypassed him in the 1962 draft. Havlicek and Dave Cowens were the key players in the Celtics title teams from the seventies.
Then he chose Larry Byrd when five other teams bypassed him in the 1978 draft.
Auerbach knew what it took to win and he knew how to get the players to help him win.
The only real mistake he made as a GM was shipping Paul Westphal off to Phoenix after Westphal mostly rode the bench his three years in Boston. His first year in Phoenix he became one of the best guards in the league and led the Suns to the finals where ironically they were defeated by Boston.
I don't know of any coach who did what Auerbach did over that length of time.

He without question had the greatest non-playing career in the history of the NBA, but how much of this was coaching and how much of this was GMing? The two are related of course, but when specifically when doing a what-if? swap, it confuses the comparison when you compare one guy's GMing with another guy who only had coaching power.

[Johnlac1]

I see Auerbach's greatness in creating championship teams over three decades. He won with Russell in the fifties with Cousy being a gunner who took the most shots while shooting the lowest fg percentage of the starters. Cousy was a great passer and great for establishing the pace but highly overrated in the scheme of things.
After Cousy, Sharman, Ramsay, Heinsohn retired the Celtics still won titles with Russell as the focal point. He chose John Havlicek after the first eight teams bypassed him in the 1962 draft. Havlicek and Dave Cowens were the key players in the Celtics title teams from the seventies.
Then he chose Larry Byrd when five other teams bypassed him in the 1978 draft.
Auerbach knew what it took to win and he knew how to get the players to help him win.
The only real mistake he made as a GM was shipping Paul Westphal off to Phoenix after Westphal mostly rode the bench his three years in Boston. His first year in Phoenix he became one of the best guards in the league and led the Suns to the finals where ironically they were defeated by Boston.
I don't know of any coach who did what Auerbach did over that length of time.

He without question had the greatest non-playing career in the history of the NBA, but how much of this was coaching and how much of this was GMing? The two are related of course, but when specifically when doing a what-if? swap, it confuses the comparison when you compare one guy's GMing with another guy who only had coaching power.

My theory is that Auerbach had a genuine plan whereas most coaches from that era other than Hannum didn't have much of a clue. I think Dick Motta might have been the first college coach who never played in the NBA to get hired as an NBA coach. And Motta had a system. Red Holtzman was another excellent coach who knew what he was doing.
But it's one thing to have a plan and another to put it into action where it pays off.
I will say Auerbach's teams had a heck of a lot of luck which I've mentioned before. And maybe it didn't take a lot to outcoach many of the NBA coaches at the time who were almost all ex players.
Nevertheless, the Celtics won year in and year out. Maybe some other coach could have done what Auerbach did, but I just don't think they would have had his all around skill in coaching and GMing.

[penbeast0]

How do you feel about John Kundla? That's well before my time but he's the other early coach that created a multiyear dynasty.

[Doctor MJ]

How do you feel about John Kundla? That's well before my time but he's the other early coach that created a multiyear dynasty.

So I've been reading about the '40s lately and wanted to share something I hadn't realized:

The Lakers were thought to have gotten the big signing of the off-season in 1947 with Jim Pollard, and they actually began the season 3-1 looking like the best team in the Western Division of the NBL before Mikan joined the team and they proceeded to lose 5 of their next 6.

So in the sense of the Lakers being stacked, yeah, we're talking about a team that may well have gotten to the Finals if Mikan had never been on the team.

On the other hand, it took some figuring out how to make the talent work together, and while early on a lot of that involved actual basketball strategy - just dumping the ball to Mikan, turns out, didn't work so great even though he personally put up big numbers - apparently the entire time it involved managing Pollard who didn't handle being relegated to sidekick well - less in anger, and more in a tendency to just not be all that engaged.

So my sense is that in the Phil Jackson sense of coaching, where you're managing a team full of guys with egos that can't be ignored, I think Kundla might have essentially been the first of that breed.