Do we Underrate Bill Russell the Coach?

[OhayoKD]

Watch on YouTube

Some things I didn't know(feel free to fact check):

-> Bill Russell claims he did not have an assistant in Boston
-> Seattle's #1 draft pick went to play in the ABA
-> Bill Russell claims he drafted two foundational pieces for 78/79 Sonics(won 1 championship, came within a game the year before)
-> Big off-court improvement in terms of sales/attendance numbers
-> Claims to have completely dismantled and replaced Seattle's roster in year where they saw 10-win improvement

[OhayoKD]

Will say, generally watching his interviews Bill Russell strikes me as very smart. Not "basketball smart" but just straight up intelligent.

For example:

Watch on YouTube

He isn't just blindly tossing in big words or overcomplicating things. He doesn't linger on vague abstractions to mask discomfort with the nooks and crannies of the subject matter. Nor is he hedging to come off as "more reasonable" than "extremes".

The anecdotes are effective and show without redundant telling. The build-up is well-paced and he effectively boils everything that came before into a cohesive compressed payoff("so he took the test...was voted surgeon of the year").

Compare to Lebron on his podcasts or Kareem in his articles, Russell is extremely efficient with his language and delivery. If nothing else, I'd say he's an impressive storyteller for a "layperson" so to speak.

Something that stands out to me is the restraint he shows. He only reveals the "guy" he was talking to was a reporter at the end, after he's provided the context which lets that land better.

[One_and_Done]

How much coaching did you even need to do back in those halcyon days? The fact he could succeed as a player coach basically confirms how little you had to do as a coach compared to today's game. His record in Seattle was meh. In a shock to nobody the coach who was fired for not producing enough thinks he actually did alot and got a rough deal.

[rk2023]

Will say, generally watching his interviews Bill Russell strikes me as vary smart. Not "basketball smart" but just straight up intelligent.

For example:

Watch on YouTube

He isn't just blindly tossing in big words or overcomplicating things. He doesn't linger on vague abstractions to mask discomfort with the nooks and crannies of the subject matter. Nor is he hedging to come off as "more reasonable" than "extremes".

The anecdotes are effective and show without redundant telling. The build-up is well-paced and he effectively boils everything that came before into a cohesive compressed payoff("so he took the test...was voted surgeon of the year").

Compare to Lebron on his podcasts or Kareem in his articles, Russell is extremely efficient with his language and delivery. If nothing else, I'd say he's an impressive storyteller for a "layperson" so to speak.

Something that stands out to me is the restraint he shows. He only reveals the "guy" he was talking to was a reporter at the end, after he's provided the context which lets that land better.

I highly recommend watching his doc on Netflix if you haven't already, Ohayo. In the first part, there is a snippet mentioning how fundamental and drilled down education and reading books was for his childhood - to the point where a library card was treated as a prized possession in the Russell household iirc.

[wojoaderge]

For what it's worth, a 1996 sportswriters' poll in the Sporting News 1996-97 NBA preview magazine named him one of the 5 worst coaches in NBA history (Roy Rubin, Bill Musselman, Jerry Tarkanian, and Dick Vitale were the others)

[OhayoKD]

Will say, generally watching his interviews Bill Russell strikes me as vary smart. Not "basketball smart" but just straight up intelligent.

For example:

Watch on YouTube

He isn't just blindly tossing in big words or overcomplicating things. He doesn't linger on vague abstractions to mask discomfort with the nooks and crannies of the subject matter. Nor is he hedging to come off as "more reasonable" than "extremes".

The anecdotes are effective and show without redundant telling. The build-up is well-paced and he effectively boils everything that came before into a cohesive compressed payoff("so he took the test...was voted surgeon of the year").

Compare to Lebron on his podcasts or Kareem in his articles, Russell is extremely efficient with his language and delivery. If nothing else, I'd say he's an impressive storyteller for a "layperson" so to speak.

Something that stands out to me is the restraint he shows. He only reveals the "guy" he was talking to was a reporter at the end, after he's provided the context which lets that land better.

I highly recommend watching his doc on Netflix if you haven't already, Ohayo. In the first part, there is a snippet mentioning how fundamental and drilled down education and reading books was for his childhood - to the point where a library card was treated as a prized possession in the Russell household iirc.

That would track

[70sFan]

How much coaching did you even need to do back in those halcyon days?

Considering how huge impact coaches like Auerbach, Hannum or Holzman did when they took their teams... Well, you needed it as much as in any other era.

The fact he could succeed as a player coach basically confirms how little you had to do as a coach compared to today's game.

The fact that no other player coach did anything relevant throughout NBA history confirms that Russell's case was special.

[70sFan]

For what it's worth, a 1996 sportswriters' poll in the Sporting News 1996-97 NBA preview magazine named him one of the 5 worst coaches in NBA history (Roy Rubin, Bill Musselman, Jerry Tarkanian, and Dick Vitale were the others)

Was there any rationale behind that choice?

[wojoaderge]

For what it's worth, a 1996 sportswriters' poll in the Sporting News 1996-97 NBA preview magazine named him one of the 5 worst coaches in NBA history (Roy Rubin, Bill Musselman, Jerry Tarkanian, and Dick Vitale were the others)

Was there any rationale behind that choice?

Not in the magazine, but supposedly this happened during the 1976-77 season:

"The problem was that Russell wasn’t a player, he was GM and coach -- an enigmatic, aloof man who expected his players to play their hearts out no matter how little he said to them. After the Sonics had seemingly degenerated back to their selfish ways in the playoffs the prior year, Russell realized that he disliked the team as players and as people. He didn't want to be coach. So in the 1976-77 season, he hardly did anything. During timeouts he rarely spoke; after losses he rarely said anything except to yell and put the players down; during practices he let the assistant coaches do most of the talking. He didn't scout the opposition, didn't even bother to tell the players who to defend until they asked; didn't look at game videos, didn't call plays. He mostly sat on the sideline, his mind apparently somewhere else. He was miserable, and the players soon became miserable too. Some were frightened at losing their jobs as well. It didn't help that he seemed to play them at random and with little explanation."

From: http://sonicscentral.com/7677.html

You can read about it in depth in the book What's Happenin'

[ZeppelinPage]

"Was there any rationale behind that choice?

Not in the magazine, but supposedly this happened during the 1976-77 season:

"The problem was that Russell wasn’t a player, he was GM and coach -- an enigmatic, aloof man who expected his players to play their hearts out no matter how little he said to them. After the Sonics had seemingly degenerated back to their selfish ways in the playoffs the prior year, Russell realized that he disliked the team as players and as people. He didn't want to be coach. So in the 1976-77 season, he hardly did anything. During timeouts he rarely spoke; after losses he rarely said anything except to yell and put the players down; during practices he let the assistant coaches do most of the talking. He didn't scout the opposition, didn't even bother to tell the players who to defend until they asked; didn't look at game videos, didn't call plays. He mostly sat on the sideline, his mind apparently somewhere else. He was miserable, and the players soon became miserable too. Some were frightened at losing their jobs as well. It didn't help that he seemed to play them at random and with little explanation."

From: http://sonicscentral.com/7677.html

You can read about it in depth in the book What's Happenin'

Russell's stint with the Sonics was pretty much a disaster and filled with dysfunction. It's possible that this, along with his more recent stint with the Kings in '88 (where Kenny Smith has told the story of Russell falling asleep during practice), impacted the voters.

As far as Russell goes, no doubt he is intelligent but the problem with his post-Celtics coaching jobs seemed to be less about intelligence and more about communication. Listening to guys like Auerbach or Riley the #1 thing they often stress as a coach is the ability to communicate, this weakness of Russell seemed to be a problem as the coach and GM of the Sonics.

I'm glad you brought up Sonics Central as it has an in-depth review of each season using a few different sources for the Russell-era Sonics:

Second Wind, 1979 by Bill Russell & Taylor Branch
Russell spends about half a chapter on his time with the Sonics. The whole book is great.

The Spencer Haywood Story: The Rise, the Fall, the Recovery, 1992 by Spencer Haywood and Scott Ostler.
Haywood spends a chapter on the Sonics, about half on his time under Russell. The book is filled with drama.

What's Happenin'?, by Blaine Johnson.
Johnson's book covers the entire 1976-77 season (Russell's last) from an insider's perspective, and contains some brief anecdotes about earlier years under Russell, plus an epilogue describing the 1977-78 season under Lenny Wilkens. Extremely revealing; you might end up hating the author, when he depicts himself as the good guy of the story, but any Sonic fan from this era needs to read this book.

Here are some excerpts from the website on Russell, most of it from Blaine Johnson's book What's Happenin'?:

1974:

Spoiler:

Russell's impression of the Sonics team was not good. They let other teams dictate their style of play; they took selfish play to new heights (in his book he relates one incident when one player was chided by another for not passing to an open man; the first said, "Don't start messing with me while I'm shooting!") They didn't play tough defense. They weren't self-motivated. In other words, they were the complete opposite of Bill Russell's Celtics teams.

To make things worse, Russell's method during training camp was to subject players to a continuous barrage of criticism and blatant put-downs (this was according to Blaine Johnson's book, "What's Happenin'?", which describes Russell's last season with the Sonics; also, several such incidents are described in Spencer Haywood's book, "Spencer Haywood: The Rise, the Fall, the Recovery.") Coming from any other coach, the players might have shrugged it off; but coming from Bill Russell, the greatest winner in basketball, a man they greatly respected on and off the court, the insults could be devastating. Probably this was Russell's way of weeding out the "weaker" players. As a reminder during games, Russell kept a baseball bat and a carrot at his feet, emphasizing his "carrot and stick" approach to coaching -- although many players probably wondered where the carrot was.

A large part of Russell's game had always been psychological; he wanted mentally tough players. (Of course, everyone does.) His approach was the opposite of Lenny Wilkens; Lenny had made players feel good and want to play; those who did what he asked and did it well when it counted got their playing time. Russell was much less predictable about playing time, and even less communicative; he did little teaching about how to do it right -- the assistant coaches did that, but they didn't hold the status that Russell did, and players often found them too verbose and hard to follow.

Spoiler:

Russell was particularly tough on 2 ex-ABA "stars," McDaniels and Brisker. McDaniels was too thin and soft to play in the NBA; Brisker was too stubborn and anti-authoritarian to play for Russell. Both Haywood's book and Johnson's book give details about how Russell ended the careers of both players. McDaniels' confidence plummeted under Russell; his already mediocre play deteriorated even more; his contract was bought out and then he was re-signed and traded early in the 73-74 season. He played for a few teams for several years after that, but never with much enthusiasm.

In preseason, as Haywood described, Brisker got mauled in practice by another player and wanted to fight; Russell let the two square off. Brisker with one punch smashed the guy's teeth out and the fight was over; Brisker then looked directly at Russell and screamed. Russell must have thought Brisker was insane -- from that day on, Russell wanted nothing to do with Brisker, often refusing to talk with him, and playing him little. Brisker apparently tried to mend fences; he played well offensively and even played defense, but Russell wasn't biting. Once you got on his wrong side, you were finished.

Russell sent Brisker to the Eastern League (basically a developmental league) to "learn defense" (which wasn't really played in the Eastern League, by the way.) Then when he returned he pleaded with Russell to let him know what he could do to play again; Johnson related that Russell simply swore at Brisker and told him to "stay out of my face." Brisker rode the bench from then on. His contract was bought out in the summer of 1974 when the Sonics took him to court, claiming he had broken a clause when he had surgery to remove bone spurs. According to Haywood and Johnson's books, many players lost respect for Bill Russell after his first season. The reason: Russell had gotten rid of Brisker even though John had showed signs of playing like an All-Star, and despite his repeated efforts to mend things with Russell. Brisker might score 70 points in a practice game according to Haywood, but Russell seemed not to notice. I remember listening to Bob Blackburn's play by play in a game against Kansas City in which Brisker scored 47 points; Blackburn was in awe.

Suddenly I was almost a Brisker fan, even though I had thought him a punk and a worthless waste of money before; now I realized how dominant he could be. But after that game, Brisker was benched; fans shouted "We want Brisker!" but Russell ignored them. Soon after that he was sent to the Eastern (developmental) league, and his career was virtually over. Other coaches and GM's assumed it was all Brisker's fault. Of course, Brisker had already had a bad reputation; his fight and screaming in the preseason was bad. I think Russell's reaction was bad too -- instead of trying to communicate with a valuable player, he basically drove him off the team and by consequence, out of the league. Maybe Brisker deserved it; Russell hasn't given his perspective on the matter.

Spoiler:

After how Russell had dealt with Brisker, many players became afraid that this would happen to them if they spoke out against the Dictator (so the books say.) Even in Russell's last season, the fear remained -- and the sense of injustice that a great man like Russell could treat a player so unfairly, at least in their eyes.

1977:

Spoiler:

I did not indicate starters, since Russell shuffled his lineup like a deck of cards that season. Most of the players averaged 25 minutes or less per game; sometimes one might start only to find himself on the bench and playing only a few minutes the next game.

Shooting Guard: Fred Brown was one of the few players who saw consistent playing time, though he came off the bench a few times and sat out with suspect injuries for 10 games. He played 29 minutes per game, averaged 17.2 points, 3 rebounds, just over 2 assists (low for him), and 1.7 steals per game. He continued to shoot well (47.9% field goals, 88.4% free throws.) Brown was generally not talkative to the press; when he spoke, he was often rather coy. But late in the season even Brown complained openly about Russell and about the lack of team play.

Spoiler:

It became common for fans to boo Russell in pre-game introductions. When Frank Oleynick went public with his complaints about lack of playing time, the fans booed both him and Russell. Sooner or later, as complaints surfaced, most of the team was booed. The fans came in droves, and they booed in droves too. It was not a happy season.

Spoiler:

The problem was that Russell wasn’t a player, he was GM and coach -- an enigmatic, aloof man who expected his players to play their hearts out no matter how little he said to them.

After the Sonics had seemingly degenerated back to their selfish ways in the playoffs the prior year, Russell realized that he disliked the team as players and as people. He didn't want to be coach. So in the 1976-77 season, he hardly did anything. During timeouts he rarely spoke; after losses he rarely said anything except to yell and put the players down; during practices he let the assistant coaches do most of the talking. He didn't scout the opposition, didn't even bother to tell the players who to defend until they asked; didn't look at game videos, didn't call plays. He mostly sat on the sideline, his mind apparently somewhere else. He was miserable, and the players soon became miserable too. Some were frightened at losing their jobs as well. It didn't help that he seemed to play them at random and with little explanation.

Spoiler:

Tolson complained to the press that he didn't know what Russell wanted out of him. Russell had no response.

By now everyone knew that Russell's days were numbered, except apparently owner Sam Schulman, who spent little time in Seattle that year. Schulman, though unhappy with Russell's behavior, still thought that Russell was too well-liked in the city to fire.

[One_and_Done]

How much coaching did you even need to do back in those halcyon days?

Considering how huge impact coaches like Auerbach, Hannum or Holzman did when they took their teams... Well, you needed it as much as in any other era.

The fact he could succeed as a player coach basically confirms how little you had to do as a coach compared to today's game.

The fact that no other player coach did anything relevant throughout NBA history confirms that Russell's case was special.

I can't imagine 95% of people on this board would agree with that statement. It's just too absurd. In Red's day he was coach, GM, scout, etc. Today an entire team of specialists does these roles full time. It is implausible Red can mimic the work of a department of 30+ people. He's not going to be coaching on the road and flying to watch guys in France at the same time. There are only so many hours, and a major undercurrent of the analtyics movement is the realisation that being good at one part of a sport (playing, coaching, etc), doesn't mean you'll be good at a separate aspect e.g. GM'ing, scouting, running cap math to exploit loopholes, parsing the CBA legislation for untapped arbitrages, etc).

Red succeeded precisely because teams were run in such an amatuerish way back then that his competence was ahead of his time. Today almost everyone is competent. Russell being able to coach and play is the same thing; he could never do that today.

[70sFan]

How much coaching did you even need to do back in those halcyon days?

Considering how huge impact coaches like Auerbach, Hannum or Holzman did when they took their teams... Well, you needed it as much as in any other era.

The fact he could succeed as a player coach basically confirms how little you had to do as a coach compared to today's game.

The fact that no other player coach did anything relevant throughout NBA history confirms that Russell's case was special.

I can't imagine 95% of people on this board would agree with that statement. It's just too absurd. In Red's day he was coach, GM, scout, etc. Today an entire team of specialists does these roles full time. It is implausible Red can mimic the work of a department of 30+ people. He's not going to be coaching on the road and flying to watch guys in France at the same time. There are only so many hours, and a major undercurrent of the analtyics movement is the realisation that being good at one part of a sport (playing, coaching, etc), doesn't mean you'll be good at a separate aspect e.g. GM'ing, scouting, running cap math to exploit loopholes, parsing the CBA legislation for untapped arbitrages, etc).

Red succeeded precisely because teams were run in such an amatuerish way back then that his competence was ahead of his time. Today almost everyone is competent. Russell being able to coach and play is the same thing; he could never do that today.

I never said that coaching was as advanced back then as it is now, but you always needed relative advantage over the field. Your argument was that coaching didn't matter back then, not that it's way more sophisticated now.

[One_and_Done]

Your argument was that coaching didn't matter back then, not that it's way more sophisticated now.

No my argument was it didn't matter as much, which you disputed and are now conceding.

Anyone reading the text in your last post will see as much.

[70sFan]

Your argument was that coaching didn't matter back then, not that it's way more sophisticated now.

No my argument was it didn't matter as much, which you disputed and are now conceding.

Anyone reading the text in your last post will see as much.

To quote your original post:

"How much coaching did you even need to do back in those halcyon days?"

People are not dumb and can read between the lines - and in this case it wasn't even hard, the interpretation was self-evident.

[One_and_Done]

I get that you are embarassed and want to double down, but both my words and yours seem self-evident.

Me:

How much coaching did you even need to do back in those halcyon days? The fact he could succeed as a player coach basically confirms how little you had to do as a coach compared to today's game.

Your reply:

you needed [coaching] as much as in any other era.

You 5 mins later:

Your argument was that coaching didn't matter back then, not that it's way more sophisticated now.

Your backtrack is clear to anyone who can read. My position has been the same all the way through.

[70sFan]

I get that you are embarassed and want to double down, but both my words and yours seem self-evident.

Me:

How much coaching did you even need to do back in those halcyon days? The fact he could succeed as a player coach basically confirms how little you had to do as a coach compared to today's game.

Your reply:

you needed [coaching] as much as in any other era.

You 5 mins later:

Your argument was that coaching didn't matter back then, not that it's way more sophisticated now.

Your backtrack is clear to anyone who can read. My position has been the same all the way through.

Coaching being more sophisticated doesn't mean that it's more important. I am only embarrassed by your lack of understanding.

[One_and_Done]

Coaching can't be 'just as important in every era' if the overall sophistication of your opponents is completely diffeŕent. It would be like arguing a knife is an equally effective weapon, regardless of whether your opponent has a club or a machine gun.

In Red's day the opponents were armed with clubs, and a knife was really effective. In today's game opposing teams have a machine gun, and the demands on coaches is exponentially more; which is why Russell could get away with being a player coach back then, but could not today.

[penbeast0]

It's like arguing that the greatest archer in pre-gun Japan or longbow era England was a great killer of men even if he didn't have an automatic weapon to make it easier. Or, if we are talking about coaching, it's like arguing that Napoleon was a great general even though he didn't have all the modern tools of the computer age. Maybe greater than a general today who hasn't proven nearly as much against the generals of today's age than Napoleon did against the other armies of his time.

[70sFan]

Coaching can't be 'just as important in every era' if the overall sophistication of your opponents is completely diffeŕent. It would be like arguing a knife is an equally effective weapon, regardless of whether your opponent has a club or a machine gun.

You are really bad at creating analogies...

[One_and_Done]

Coaching can't be 'just as important in every era' if the overall sophistication of your opponents is completely diffeŕent. It would be like arguing a knife is an equally effective weapon, regardless of whether your opponent has a club or a machine gun.

You are really bad at creating analogies...

I'm better at being right.