Dynasty Leaders

[eminence]

Riffing on the KD thread, but who do you see as the primary leader - player, coach, or management of each of the great dynasties? 3+ titles:

40s/50s Lakers
50s/60s Celtics
ABA Pacers (I have no idea on this one)
80s Lakers
80s Celtics
90s Bulls
90s/00s/10s Spurs
00s Lakers
10s/20s Warriors

[penbeast0]

Generally speaking, I tend to think the players are the most important. Possible exception is the 80s Lakers who got #1 picks for the likes of aging Gail Goodrich and never was Don McLean to add Magic Johnson and James Worthy to Kareem under Bill Sharman. Primacy as a player was split between Kareem and Magic so I went with Sharman though Magic is also a very legit choice.

Mikan
Russell
Daniels
Sharman (GM)
Bird
Jordan
Duncan
Shaq
Curry

[OhayoKD]

Riffing on the KD thread, but who do you see as the primary leader - player, coach, or management of each of the great dynasties? 3+ titles:

40s/50s Lakers
50s/60s Celtics
ABA Pacers (I have no idea on this one)
80s Lakers
80s Celtics
90s Bulls
90s/00s/10s Spurs
00s Lakers
10s/20s Warriors

Is this an off-court thing/intangible thing or do you just mean in general

[eminence]

Riffing on the KD thread, but who do you see as the primary leader - player, coach, or management of each of the great dynasties? 3+ titles:

40s/50s Lakers
50s/60s Celtics
ABA Pacers (I have no idea on this one)
80s Lakers
80s Celtics
90s Bulls
90s/00s/10s Spurs
00s Lakers
10s/20s Warriors

Is this an off-court thing/intangible thing or do you just mean in general

I was thinking off-court focused, but if you see situations where that's clearly distinct from on-court stuff feel free to split the honors.

[OhayoKD]

Riffing on the KD thread, but who do you see as the primary leader - player, coach, or management of each of the great dynasties? 3+ titles:

40s/50s Lakers
50s/60s Celtics
ABA Pacers (I have no idea on this one)
80s Lakers
80s Celtics
90s Bulls
90s/00s/10s Spurs
00s Lakers
10s/20s Warriors

Is this an off-court thing/intangible thing or do you just mean in general

I was thinking off-court focused, but if you see situations where that's clearly distinct from on-court stuff feel free to split the honors.

Well if it's off-court focused I don't think there's any real argument against Phil Jackson as the leader for the Lakers and the Bulls

Spoiler:

Jordan's career is unique in that we got to see his leadership in the absence of who he succeeded with, and we also got to see how who he succeeded with led without him. And when we read things coldly, without any prior theories about what basketball players must do and don't and be like and must not be like...

Jackson+Jordan+Pippen -> 2 3-peats -> Jordan is tasked with making the least decisions he's made at any point of his career.

Jackson+Pippen -> Contention one-year, fine the next(srs had them at 52 wins pre-MJ in 95 but sure whatever, all-the more impressive considering Pippen did not want to be there and Grant's departure

Jackson no Jordan or Pippen -> 3-peat

Pippen no Jackson or Pippen -> Barely lose the real-nba finals in 2000 with Pippen a physical shell

Jordan no Jackson or Pippen(let's count years Pippen did not start) -> Strong Contention 1-year with his decision-making relatively limited, and then there is Washington...

The Success starts with him and ends with him and continues when its him and does not continue when it's not him be it for Jordan, Shaq or Kobe.

The Warriors are either Kerr or Draymond. Spurs are theoretically a toss-up but really Duncan let Pop control everything.

I think Penbeast is right with the Lakers if we count gm's, but otherwiseMagic having literally forced the team to cater to his offense definitely was the lead. Bird won with different coaches and was an on-court coach so he claims the Celtics. Russell won twice as the coach so Russell claims them.

[Doctor MJ]

Riffing on the KD thread, but who do you see as the primary leader - player, coach, or management of each of the great dynasties? 3+ titles:

40s/50s Lakers
50s/60s Celtics
ABA Pacers (I have no idea on this one)
80s Lakers
80s Celtics
90s Bulls
90s/00s/10s Spurs
00s Lakers
10s/20s Warriors

Hmm, if we're talking about the most valuable piece, my inclination in general is to side with players. If we're talking about who the person was that commanded the other, it's oftentimes the coach or GM.

I think the Spurs give us the best example of this. Duncan was the most valuable piece, but Pop was the leader. Pop couldn't have led if Duncan didn't let him lead, but nevertheless, Pop led.

[eminence]

Riffing on the KD thread, but who do you see as the primary leader - player, coach, or management of each of the great dynasties? 3+ titles:

40s/50s Lakers
50s/60s Celtics
ABA Pacers (I have no idea on this one)
80s Lakers
80s Celtics
90s Bulls
90s/00s/10s Spurs
00s Lakers
10s/20s Warriors

Hmm, if we're talking about the most valuable piece, my inclination in general is to side with players. If we're talking about who the person was that commanded the other, it's oftentimes the coach or GM.

I think the Spurs give us the best example of this. Duncan was the most valuable piece, but Pop was the leader. Pop couldn't have led if Duncan didn't let him lead, but nevertheless, Pop led.

I was going for the 'commander', agreed that superstar players are almost always the most valuable to the franchise at the level we're talking about.

[HeartBreakKid]

This is kind of like when fans think actors call the shots in movies because they're the faces of it. Players are not the real leaders they are just the soldiers. You need soldiers to win a war, but it doesn't mean they are the "leaders". Players are more important than coaches but it doesn't mean they lead them.

Steve Jobs wasn't the most important person in Apple or even all that close considering he can't create anything, but he certainly was their leader. There is no universe where Manu Ginobili is Popovich's leader.

Management leads the franchise and management is why the dynasty is a dynasty. They are the ones who hire the players to establish the dynasty in the first place. Coaches tell the players what to do, and they usually do it unless it is very lopsided (like the GOAT telling an unestablished coach to go away). Players do not tell anyone what to do, even very good ones - except a few other players.



Lebron James who has been tainted for being a backseat GM still never told even a relatively unestablished coach like Spolstra what to do, and he certainly did not tell Pat Riley what to do. Only teams with weak management get bullied by James(which is blackmail and coercion not leadership anyway), and that's because even if he wasn't there they would make terrible decisions (I think the examples speak for themselves).

If all things are equal the goat coach is going to lead his team over the goat player. Michael Jordan is just called the leader colloquially, but Phil Jackson was the guy who actually controlled everyone and made it work (ditto with LA). I don't think either guy is the GOAT at their jobs but it works out that they played with each other.

[MacGill]

This is kind of like when fans think actors call the shots in movies because they're the faces of it. Players are not the real leaders they are just the soldiers. You need soldiers to win a war, but it doesn't mean they are the "leaders". Players are more important than coaches but it doesn't mean they lead them.

More people need to pay attention to this detail. We have no 'behind the scenes' access aside from small limited samples of what the media or organization provides to us or players speak about. Players want to win and will have many moments where (enter said player) will think that 'if they just had more shots that they could get them there'. Players lead first by skill level and then by tenure. Very few can actually blend both skills together throughout their peak/prime.

But the generic notion most think is - winning + likeable + good behaviour = great leader, which is simply just a quick surface notion.

What did people first think when the Bulls were bringing in Asst. coach Phil Jackson to Chicago? Was he already established? Did he have any nba track record as a head coach? But many will act like he was already a HOF coach from day 1 prior to joining. It's also why every player post retirement now becomes a philospher in the game of basketball. And often times, opposite to how they actually played the game in their day, but they want to sound intelligent.

In the world of 'Hot Dog' sports, many confuse 'leadership' with being a team player and having the players respect as best player. You need the best player on your team to win so players will buy into this, even if they don't like the elite player. The coach also plays off this player which also helps him drive his points home etc. But players have played on teams for as long as they can remember to get where they are. And their isn't a player who wasn't mentored by someone when they first joined the league. If it wasn't needed, we'd see young 20 something coaches then.

This is partially why I hold Russell in such high regard as he won two titles as a players coach. They make it sound so easy because of his team make-up but leading pro athletes would be anything but that. He is the absolute best example of being a 'true' leader that we have so far in my opinion.

[Djoker]

40s/50s Lakers - Mikan
50s/60s Celtics - Russell
ABA Pacers - Daniels
80s Lakers - Kareem in 1980 then Magic for others
80s Celtics - Bird
90s Bulls - Jordan
90s/00s/10s Spurs - Duncan
00s Lakers - Shaq for 2000-02 then Kobe for 2009-10
10s/20s Warriors - Curry

[eminence]

.

Hey Doc, I was curious on your thoughts on the 80s Lakers in particular.

My own initial picks.

40s/50s Lakers: Kundla
50s/60s Celtics: Red into Russell
Pacers: As stated, no clue
80s Lakers: I was curious about the Magic/Riley dynamic, or if there was a higher power in the FO/ownership (obviously ownership always has the actual power, but it's fairly rarely used)
80s Celtics: I was thinking Red here still over Bird
90s Bulls: Jackson
90s/00s/10s Spurs: Pop
00s Lakers: Jackson (HM to second go around Kobe)
10s/20s Warriors: Kerr

[Doctor MJ]

.

Hey Doc, I was curious on your thoughts on the 80s Lakers in particular.

My own initial picks.

40s/50s Lakers: Kundla
50s/60s Celtics: Red into Russell
Pacers: As stated, no clue
80s Lakers: I was curious about the Magic/Riley dynamic, or if there was a higher power in the FO/ownership (obviously ownership always has the actual power, but it's fairly rarely used)
80s Celtics: I was thinking Red here still over Bird
90s Bulls: Jackson
90s/00s/10s Spurs: Pop
00s Lakers: Jackson (HM to second go around Kobe)
10s/20s Warriors: Kerr

Okay so my thoughts:

40s/50s Lakers: George Mikan
At the start, this was about the ownership/GMing of Ben Berger and Morris Chalfin. They hired a wet-behind-the-ears 31-year-old John Kundla as coach and then also managed to acquire two mega-star players in Jim Pollard and George Mikan. Reports early on that the dominant forces in the locker room were not Kundla but Mikan and veteran guard Herm Schaeffer who seemed to be the only one willing to stand up to Mikan.

As the team got established Kundla definitely had ideas that got implemented through his players, but it was also a lot of on-court experimentation with Mikan & Pollard. In that relationship, Mikan was the alpha despite being younger. Mikan gets portrayed as a super-intense work-a-holic with Pollard as an extreme talent that somedays looked amazing, and somedays needed to be yelled at.

I'd be inclined to side with Mikan as the one truly in command here more so than Kundla, and I'd also point to how he ran the ABA like a dictator getting it off the ground. After college, I don't think anyone really commanded Mikan ever again.

50s/60s Celtics: Red Auerbach
Obviously the debate here is between Red & Russell. With Russell being the more essential piece, the more important innovator, and eventually the coach of the team.

Nevertheless, the Celtics to me feel like they belonged to Red all the way through the Bird years. Over time he did less of the on-court yelling of course, but I think everyone followed the smoke of his cigar.

70s Pacers: Slick Leonard
So, I'm no expert here, but what we can say is that the team shifted from a Brown/Daniels focus to a McGinnis focus for their last championship. While I'm sure the older guys had influence, I doubt they were pushing the team in this direction. I think it was the coach Slick, who seemed to be the basketball man the owners handed the reins to.

80s Lakers: Magic Johnson
It's between Magic the player, Riley the coach, and Jerry Buss the new owner. In practice I think Riley was truly the one issuing the commands once he got established...but he got brought to power when Magic got the previous coach fired for daring to tell Magic what to do with the ball. Magic was Buss' guy of course, so none of this happens without Buss' say, but the Busses weren't (and aren't) really basketball people.

The fact that the team won their first championship without Riley as coach and continued to compete after Riley left, combined with Magic's astonishing charisma and unmatched control of the team's competitive advantage (offense) I think gives him the nod.

90s Bulls: Phil Jackson
Very tricky here because I think Michael Jordan actually probably did more yelling than Jackson, but the team's breakthrough comes from Jackson taking the reins, changing the scheme, and empowering Scottie Pippen as a co-leader. Then there's the whole stretch where Jordan isn't there and the team still does pretty dang good despite the fact that Pippen doesn't really seem to function as an ideal leader. Given that we're fine separating out "the most valuable" from "the leader", it seems fair to give Jordan the first title and Jackson the second.

Spurs: Gregg Popovich
Clear cut answer here. The more interesting question is who the top player leader is from a perspective of actually talking to teammates. We know that the answer wasn't Duncan early on - Avery Johnson and David Robinson were. In later years, Duncan becomes less comfortable and is definitely one of the veteran leaders, but did he actually talk as a leader more than any other teammate?

00s Lakers: Phil Jackson
Have to go with Jackson here with his arrival leading to transformations not one but twice.

10s/20s Warriors: Steve Kerr
I think there's a case to be made here for Draymond Green who is an incredible locker room force, but the whole philosophy of how the Warriors play comes from Kerr, and that philosophy is what defines the era in contrast to what came before.

[Doctor MJ]

This is kind of like when fans think actors call the shots in movies because they're the faces of it. Players are not the real leaders they are just the soldiers.

This really depends on the movie. I'd say when you see an actor getting writing or producing credit, there's a good chance that that director isn't really in charge of things.

Steve Jobs wasn't the most important person in Apple or even all that close considering he can't create anything, but he certainly was their leader.

Early on I think Wozniak - the brilliant engineer - was the MVP of Apple, but when Jobs became CEO again after his time away from the company, I think he was the most important person by a wide margin. He was the visionary behind the products that would make Apple the biggest company in the world.

[Raonak]

Warriors is a tough one to nail, because draymond is the vocal leader, and kerr being the coach, and the GM and owner also being very important too.

But Curry is the leader, not because he nessicerily makes decisions, but because of his charisma and his amazing of play.
Everybody knows the warriors dynasty only exists because of him, and thus every decision made revolves around him.

[D.Brasco]

The Celtics as a franchise especially under Red Auerbach into the 80s were a dynasty. The specific 80s Bird Celtics in my view did not hit the criteria for a true dynasty. 3 titles over a decade period with no repeats to me is not a true dynasty.

[Rishkar]

There is no universe where Manu Ginobili is Popovich's leader.

Really? I think that both Duncan and Manu were more important cultural pieces for the Spur's Late success, with Avery Johnson and David Robinson being the driving cultural leaders early. Manu was the player willing to challenge Pop for the good of the team. Duncan's willingness to cooperate with Popovich and provide an example for the other guy's on that team was essential in empowering Popovich to run the team and made none of his players untouchable. With Manu being the second most important player on those teams, he was able to throw his weight around a bit and increase the offensive efficiency of the team by increasing his primacy and attempting riskier plays. Popovich is overrated.

[OhayoKD]

There is no universe where Manu Ginobili is Popovich's leader.

Really? I think that both Duncan and Manu were more important cultural pieces for the Spur's Late success, with Avery Johnson and David Robinson being the driving cultural leaders early. Manu was the player willing to challenge Pop for the good of the team. Duncan's willingness to cooperate with Popovich and provide an example for the other guy's on that team was essential in empowering Popovich to run the team and made none of his players untouchable. With Manu being the second most important player on those teams, he was able to throw his weight around a bit and increase the offensive efficiency of the team by increasing his primacy and attempting riskier plays. Popovich is overrated.

The disparity is in frequency. Setting aside Duncan was the only common demonimator for all 5 titles, the Spurs more often operated with Pop carrying an iron-grip, something unusual for the time and only really possible because of Duncan.

Duncan's pretty clear cut as the player-leader. Alot more debatable with jordan/pippen and curry/draymond imo. Though even basic correlation would get you there

[Rishkar]

There is no universe where Manu Ginobili is Popovich's leader.

Really? I think that both Duncan and Manu were more important cultural pieces for the Spur's Late success, with Avery Johnson and David Robinson being the driving cultural leaders early. Manu was the player willing to challenge Pop for the good of the team. Duncan's willingness to cooperate with Popovich and provide an example for the other guy's on that team was essential in empowering Popovich to run the team and made none of his players untouchable. With Manu being the second most important player on those teams, he was able to throw his weight around a bit and increase the offensive efficiency of the team by increasing his primacy and attempting riskier plays. Popovich is overrated.

The disparity is in frequency. Setting aside Duncan was the only common demonimator for all 5 titles, the Spurs more often operated with Pop carrying an iron-grip, something unusual for the time and only really possible because of Duncan.

Duncan's pretty clear cut as the player-leader. Alot more debatable with jordan/pippen and curry/draymond imo. Though even basic correlation would get you there

I'm not arguing that Manu is more impactful than Duncan, just Pop

[Cavsfansince84]

Warriors is a tough one to nail, because draymond is the vocal leader, and kerr being the coach, and the GM and owner also being very important too.

But Curry is the leader, not because he nessicerily makes decisions, but because of his charisma and his amazing of play.
Everybody knows the warriors dynasty only exists because of him, and thus every decision made revolves around him.

I can buy that Curry's overall personality/intangibles are a major factor towards the Warriors success over the last 10 years but not sure I can buy into the idea that he is truly a leader. It's just not an easy sell for me personally given how much more vocal/emotional Draymond is and how Kerr has said numerous times how Draymond is the emotional leader and why imo the Warriors' staff/brass refuse to stand up to him. They've given every indication possible for an organization to make that Draymond's value goes far beyond his numbers/defense and they need his presence in order to win titles. So on that basis I think he is the leader, probably much more so than Steph is. I mean Steph can have a huge impact on winning without really being a leader.

[scrabbarista]

Riffing on the KD thread, but who do you see as the primary leader - player, coach, or management of each of the great dynasties? 3+ titles:

40s/50s Lakers
50s/60s Celtics
ABA Pacers (I have no idea on this one)
80s Lakers
80s Celtics
90s Bulls
90s/00s/10s Spurs
00s Lakers
10s/20s Warriors

Mikan
Russell

Magic
Bird
Jordan
Duncan
Tough call! I suppose most Lakers fans would say Kobe. If so, I'm fine with that, though it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice.
Curry

EDIT: Just saw OP was going for "the commander." In that case, it's Auerbach for the Russell Celtics. Riley for the Magic Lakers. Jackson for the Bulls and Lakers. Pop for the Spurs. Kerr for the Warriors. I'm not sure for Mikan's and Bird's teams. In basically every case, the best player has to let the coach command. You can say some coaches demanded or earned that more than others, but the reason I initially put the players is because that's where the true power was in every case.