Leadership: How Many players have a case over Magic?

[tonyreyes123]

Duncan, Jordan, Curry

[Verticality]

How does one assess leadership?

[One_and_Done]

If Russell was a great leader as a player, then one must assume that he somehow forgot how to be a leader as the coach of the Kings, because his behaviour as Kings coach was some of the worst leadership I’ve ever heard of from a coach, from telling his players they sucked, to falling asleep in practise. Needless to say, he showed no particular genius in x’s and o’s, etc. That’s not surprising, because when Russell played all he needed to do on 90% of defensive possessions was run in a straight line back to the post, and man up on the opposing 5. Not exactly a particularly cerebral skill set.

Bill Russell’s worst NBA chapter was with Sacramento Kings | Sacramento Bee

Russell won his first game on Nov. 6, 1987, rolling Golden State 134-106. He went 16-41 from there. Along the way, Russell would often sip coffee and read the morning paper in the Arco seats while assistant coaches Jerry Reynolds and Willis Reed ran practices. Russell once dozed off in practice. When players snickered, he woke up, lectured them for being so boring that he had to doze, and then threw them out of the gym.

“I sat next to him for six months — every plane trip, bus ride, pregame meal,” Smith said Sunday on NBATV. “He said, ‘Look at all of these guys. None of them have every won anything!’ He’s screaming this on the bus.”

[70sFan]

If Russell was a great leader as a player, then one must assume that he somehow forgot how to be a leader as the coach of the Kings, because his behaviour as Kings coach was some of the worst leadership I’ve ever heard of from a coach, from telling his players they sucked, to falling asleep in practise. Needless to say, he showed no particular genius in x’s and o’s, etc. That’s not surprising, because when Russell played all he needed to do on 90% of defensive possessions was run in a straight line back to the post, and man up on the opposing 5. Not exactly a particularly cerebral skill set.

Bill Russell’s worst NBA chapter was with Sacramento Kings | Sacramento Bee

Russell won his first game on Nov. 6, 1987, rolling Golden State 134-106. He went 16-41 from there. Along the way, Russell would often sip coffee and read the morning paper in the Arco seats while assistant coaches Jerry Reynolds and Willis Reed ran practices. Russell once dozed off in practice. When players snickered, he woke up, lectured them for being so boring that he had to doze, and then threw them out of the gym.

“I sat next to him for six months — every plane trip, bus ride, pregame meal,” Smith said Sunday on NBATV. “He said, ‘Look at all of these guys. None of them have every won anything!’ He’s screaming this on the bus.”

Russell came back to coaching only for money, it was a very short episode in his life and he quickly abandoned it. He also coached one of the worst teams in the league.

I mean, of course you can conclude from this brief period that Russell is one of the worst leaders ever, but then you also need to explain all the accounts of his leadership from the playing days.

I also still wait for the explaination of these words:

"I'd say being a 'leader' back then probably required a very different set of skills that would often have made for poor leadership elsewhere."

[The Explorer]

I know it's very hard to quantify, but it would require a lot of bad faith to exclude Bill Russell from the conversation.

I'd say being a 'leader' back then probably required a very different set of skills that would often have made for poor leadership elsewhere.

What does this mean?

If Russell was a great leader as a player, then one must assume that he somehow forgot how to be a leader as the coach of the Kings

So are you choosing to ignore his work as a leader as a player? If so, why?

[Cavsfansince84]

If Russell was a great leader as a player, then one must assume that he somehow forgot how to be a leader as the coach of the Kings, because his behaviour as Kings coach was some of the worst leadership I’ve ever heard of from a coach, from telling his players they sucked, to falling asleep in practise. Needless to say, he showed no particular genius in x’s and o’s, etc. That’s not surprising, because when Russell played all he needed to do on 90% of defensive possessions was run in a straight line back to the post, and man up on the opposing 5. Not exactly a particularly cerebral skill set.

Bill Russell’s worst NBA chapter was with Sacramento Kings | Sacramento Bee

Russell won his first game on Nov. 6, 1987, rolling Golden State 134-106. He went 16-41 from there. Along the way, Russell would often sip coffee and read the morning paper in the Arco seats while assistant coaches Jerry Reynolds and Willis Reed ran practices. Russell once dozed off in practice. When players snickered, he woke up, lectured them for being so boring that he had to doze, and then threw them out of the gym.

“I sat next to him for six months — every plane trip, bus ride, pregame meal,” Smith said Sunday on NBATV. “He said, ‘Look at all of these guys. None of them have every won anything!’ He’s screaming this on the bus.”

Coaching leadership and playing leadership are not the same thing though having said that Russell won 2 rings as a coach so that one year as a coach 20 years after his playing days ended are pretty much completely irrelevant imo. He also coached Seattle and did ok but again I don't think its that relevant to the type of leader he was as a player. What we know of him as a player is that he was incredibly obsessed with winning/won 11 rings, 2 ncaa titles plus Olympic gold, incredibly impactful on the court, had a great memory and bbiq that could adapt very well on the fly and was basically highly respected by all of his teammates. So that's what I think of when I think of Bill.

[OhayoKD]

If Russell was a great leader as a player, then one must assume that he somehow forgot how to be a leader as the coach of the Kings, because his behaviour as Kings coach was some of the worst leadership I’ve ever heard of from a coach, from telling his players they sucked, to falling asleep in practise. Needless to say, he showed no particular genius in x’s and o’s, etc. That’s not surprising, because when Russell played all he needed to do on 90% of defensive possessions was run in a straight line back to the post, and man up on the opposing 5. Not exactly a particularly cerebral skill set.

Bill Russell’s worst NBA chapter was with Sacramento Kings | Sacramento Bee

Russell won his first game on Nov. 6, 1987, rolling Golden State 134-106. He went 16-41 from there. Along the way, Russell would often sip coffee and read the morning paper in the Arco seats while assistant coaches Jerry Reynolds and Willis Reed ran practices. Russell once dozed off in practice. When players snickered, he woke up, lectured them for being so boring that he had to doze, and then threw them out of the gym.

“I sat next to him for six months — every plane trip, bus ride, pregame meal,” Smith said Sunday on NBATV. “He said, ‘Look at all of these guys. None of them have every won anything!’ He’s screaming this on the bus.”

Coaching leadership and playing leadership are not the same thing though having said that Russell won 2 rings as a coach so that one year as a coach 20 years after his playing days ended are pretty much completely irrelevant imo. He also coached Seattle and did ok but again I don't think its that relevant to the type of leader he was as a player. What we know of him as a player is that he was incredibly obsessed with winning/won 11 rings, 2 ncaa titles plus Olympic gold, incredibly impactful on the court, had a great memory and bbiq that could adapt very well on the fly and was basically highly respected by all of his teammates. So that's what I think of when I think of Bill.

Why in the world would leadership as a coach not be relevant to leadership as a player

[One_and_Done]

I guess worth noting also that when Russell 'coached', the role of the coach was completely different, and far more simplistic. You'd yell at guys to play harder, etc.

[Benjammin]

If Russell was a great leader as a player, then one must assume that he somehow forgot how to be a leader as the coach of the Kings, because his behaviour as Kings coach was some of the worst leadership I’ve ever heard of from a coach, from telling his players they sucked, to falling asleep in practise. Needless to say, he showed no particular genius in x’s and o’s, etc. That’s not surprising, because when Russell played all he needed to do on 90% of defensive possessions was run in a straight line back to the post, and man up on the opposing 5. Not exactly a particularly cerebral skill set.

Bill Russell’s worst NBA chapter was with Sacramento Kings | Sacramento Bee

Coaching leadership and playing leadership are not the same thing though having said that Russell won 2 rings as a coach so that one year as a coach 20 years after his playing days ended are pretty much completely irrelevant imo. He also coached Seattle and did ok but again I don't think its that relevant to the type of leader he was as a player. What we know of him as a player is that he was incredibly obsessed with winning/won 11 rings, 2 ncaa titles plus Olympic gold, incredibly impactful on the court, had a great memory and bbiq that could adapt very well on the fly and was basically highly respected by all of his teammates. So that's what I think of when I think of Bill.

Why in the world would leadership as a coach not be relevant to leadership as a player

Maybe because they are two completely different roles?

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

[OhayoKD]

Coaching leadership and playing leadership are not the same thing though having said that Russell won 2 rings as a coach so that one year as a coach 20 years after his playing days ended are pretty much completely irrelevant imo. He also coached Seattle and did ok but again I don't think its that relevant to the type of leader he was as a player. What we know of him as a player is that he was incredibly obsessed with winning/won 11 rings, 2 ncaa titles plus Olympic gold, incredibly impactful on the court, had a great memory and bbiq that could adapt very well on the fly and was basically highly respected by all of his teammates. So that's what I think of when I think of Bill.

Why in the world would leadership as a coach not be relevant to leadership as a player

Maybe because they are two completely different roles?

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

"Completely" is doing alot of work here. There's obvious carryover between the two and ignoring how someone leads in different situations indicates you're not actually interested in someone's leadership but the results that happened to have occurred during a certain portion of their tenure as a leader

[The Explorer]

Why in the world would leadership as a coach not be relevant to leadership as a player

Maybe because they are two completely different roles?

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

"Completely" is doing alot of work here. There's obvious carryover between the two and ignoring how someone leads in different situations indicates you're not actually interested in someone's leadership but the results that happened to have occurred during a certain portion of their tenure as a leader

Did you read the OP or no?

Here is it is you haven't:

In terms of leadership, how many players in NBA history have a case over Magic Johnson?

So can you explain why you and one and done are going off topic are talking about Russell as a coach?

[OhayoKD]

Maybe because they are two completely different roles?

Sent from my Pixel 9 Pro XL using Tapatalk

"Completely" is doing alot of work here. There's obvious carryover between the two and ignoring how someone leads in different situations indicates you're not actually interested in someone's leadership but the results that happened to have occurred during a certain portion of their tenure as a leader

Did you read the OP or no?

Here is it is you haven't:

In terms of leadership, how many players in NBA history have a case over Magic Johnson?

So can you explain why you and one and done are going off topic are talking about Russell as a coach?

Because the traits of leadership Russell exhibits during his tenure as a coach in a different situation can inform us about what Russell would have led like as a player in other situations.

If you are only interested in what happened with Russell as a player, then you are not actually interested in Russell's leadership, just his play.

[Smoothbutta]

You can be a good leader as a player and not be a good leader as a coach, and vice versa.

You can also change after retirement as a player due to other circumstances.

It does not really make sense to judge player's for their work after their retirement as a player.

[OhayoKD]

You can be a good leader as a player and not be a good leader as a coach, and vice versa.

You can also change after retirement as a player due to other circumstances.

It does not really make sense to judge player's for their work after their retirement as a player.

Or, alternatively. The reason you were a "good" leader in one situation is because of factors other than whether you were playing or not.

It makes sense...unless you want to conflate good play and team-success with leadership.

[70sFan]

I guess worth noting also that when Russell 'coached', the role of the coach was completely different, and far more simplistic. You'd yell at guys to play harder, etc.

I mean, why do you think anyone would take you seriously after such comments? It's not about you having hipster opinions, you just don't know what you are talking about.

All the main coaching strategies were already well developed in the 1960s. Triangle system was heavily used by Hannum, motion offense was developed by van Breda Koff (Princeton Offense), Holzman played P&R heavy offense with stretch bigs etc. All the coaching fundamentals already existed back then. It's a common knowledge for people interested in basketball history,

I truly don't understand why people talk about subjects they have no idea about with such a strong certainty...

[OldSchoolNoBull]

He was the coach of the Kings for four months. We have a thirteen year period where everyone around him from his coach to his teammates extolled his leadership qualities and held him in the highest esteem. I really don't understand why anyone should give a four month period two decades after the fact the same weight as that.

The following are excerpts from a 2012 Bill Simmons(I know, noted Celtics homer) article, which was actually about Kobe not being a great leader(which I don't think is a controversial take) and using Russell as an example a great one in comparison.

https://grantland.com/features/the-kobe-question

Ispent five hours with Bill Russell last week and thought of Kobe Bryant twice and only twice. One time, we were discussing a revelation from Russell’s extraordinary biography, Second Wind, that Russell scouted the Celtics after joining them in 1956. Why would you scout your own teammates? What does that even mean? Russell wanted to play to their strengths and cover their weaknesses, which you can’t do without figuring out exactly what those strengths and weaknesses were. So he studied them. He studied them during practices, shooting drills, scrimmages, even those rare moments when Red Auerbach rested him during games. He built a mental filing cabinet that stored everything they could and couldn’t do, then determined how to boost them accordingly. It was HIS job to make THEM better. That’s what he believed.

Later in the day, we were discussing leadership and Russell revealed that he never criticized a teammate publicly or privately. Not once. Not during his entire 13-year career. What was the point? Everyone already knew Russell was their best player — why undermine their confidence by making them doubt themselves, or even worse, making them wonder if he believed in them? How was that productive? Russell believed, and still believes, that a basketball team only achieves its potential if everyone embraces their roles — you figure out what you have, split the responsibilities and you’re off. The less thinking, the better. Early in their playing partnership, Russell asked Bob Cousy to find a specific spot every time an opponent attempted a shot — about 25 feet away from the basket, on the left or right side — so Russell could snare the rebound, whirl around and throw Cousy an outlet pass in one motion. After a few months, they didn’t even think about it anymore. Shot, spot, rebound, release, go. In time, Tommy Heinsohn took off right before Russell grabbed that rebound, as did everyone else wearing white-and-green, and suddenly, the greatest fast break in basketball history was off and running.

OK, so how do you challenge your teammates without undermining them? Russell’s book covers one example with an enlightening section on Sam Jones, one of the league’s first great scoring guards but someone who feared the responsibility of being great every night. Sam couldn’t handle the pressure; the burden was too big, like having the same term paper hanging over your head 100 times per year. That drove Russell crazy. Eventually, he learned to accept that they just weren’t wired the same way. Sam didn’t puke before every big game. He didn’t measure his happiness by the success or failure of his basketball team. But he also happened to be a phenomenally gifted offensive player, someone who loved taking and making pressure shots. Sam’s laconic demeanor worked against him being a legendary player, but for big moments? It was perfect. You could always go to Sam when it mattered. More often than not, Sam came through.

In the wrong hands, Sam’s career might have gone a little differently. Russell always understood that Sam was Sam — he wasn’t going to bleed basketball like Jerry West did, and he would never obsess over every play of every quarter like Oscar Robertson did. You are who you are. Bill Russell left Sam Jones alone.

So that was one example. Russell told the other story in Seattle last week, after I asked him how the aging Celtics won their last two titles without a real point guard. They didn’t run the triangle offense like MJ’s Bulls or Shaq’s Lakers … so how? Russell joked about “making” Larry Siegfried play point guard after K.C. Jones (Cousy’s successor) retired, then explained how it happened. Russell became Boston’s player/coach before the 1966-67 season, which ended unhappily after Wilt’s Sixers demolished the (seemingly) aging Celtics in the Eastern Conference finals. During Game 5, Philly’s crowd chanted “BOSTON IS DEAD! BOSTON IS DEAD!” Russell heard that chant ringing in his ears all summer. After winning eight straight titles, he wasn’t ready to be buried as a basketball player yet. He also wasn’t ready to blow up his team. So he asked Siegfried to replace K.C. Jones. Russell wasn’t asking for a Cousy impression, just someone to dribble from Point A to Point B, call plays and start their offense. That’s it.

Siegfried resisted. He wasn’t a point guard. He didn’t want the added responsibility, nor did he want to chase faster players around. Russell gently insisted. No, thanks, Larry Siegfried said. They had reached something of a stalemate. The modern solution would be dealing Siegfried away, but the Celtics never traded back then — they believed continuity was their single biggest advantage other than Russell. During Russell’s entire playing career, the Celtics only swung one real trade in 13 years: Mel Counts for Bailey Howell. Amazing and true.

So Russell kept cajoling Siegfried, never threatening him, just appealing to him as a friend. Russell wore him down. Siegfried relented. After a few weeks, Siegfred decided that he didn’t want to play point anymore. They did the same dance again. And Russell wore him down again, this time by making it clear this was Siegfried’s best chance to play. He didn’t threaten him or anything, just laid out the landscape. We have me, Havlicek, Sam and Bailey (Howell). All four of us need to play. This is your best way to get minutes, Larry. He kept appealing to him as a friend more than anything. You can guess what happened next. And yes, the Celtics won their last two titles of the Russell era with a shooting guard bringing up the ball. So much for Boston being dead.

As Russell was telling the Siegfried story, I couldn’t help but wonder how Kobe would have handled that situation. Would he have cussed him out? Bullied him? Called him out to a reporter? Pushed behind the scenes for the Lakers to dump him? And how would an obviously stubborn guy like Siegfried have handled Kobe’s reaction? My guess: Siegfried would have pushed back … and if he pushed back, he probably wouldn’t have been a Laker for too long. Let’s at least agree that Kobe wouldn’t have handled things like Bill Russell did.

[One_and_Done]

I guess worth noting also that when Russell 'coached', the role of the coach was completely different, and far more simplistic. You'd yell at guys to play harder, etc.

I mean, why do you think anyone would take you seriously after such comments? It's not about you having hipster opinions, you just don't know what you are talking about.

All the main coaching strategies were already well developed in the 1960s. Triangle system was heavily used by Hannum, motion offense was developed by van Breda Koff (Princeton Offense), Holzman played P&R heavy offense with stretch bigs etc. All the coaching fundamentals already existed back then. It's a common knowledge for people interested in basketball history,

I truly don't understand why people talk about subjects they have no idea about with such a strong certainty...

The complexity today is completely different. That's why you have a whole coaching staff now, and are tracking guys every movement on synergy, and coming up with increasingly complex plays and counters and counter actions. The kernel of those things existed back then, but the level of sophistication is on another planet now. I have discussed this before, with reference to videos Thinking Basketball did on the 24 Wolves/Denver series.

Bill Russell could never be a player coach today. That shouldn't be a controversial statement, even if only because the job is so different. I remember when we were referred to finals footage of Bill in 1969. That footage is notable because of how simplistic everything is. Russell's job in particular is child's play to follow compared to the coverages Towns had to navigate in the Wolves/Denver series I referred to. All Russell does on 90% of possessions is run back in a straight line on D, then stands next to Wilt on the block.

Russell is a legend, etc, etc. If we're talking about who had the greatest impact on the game, He is among the very top guys. I wouldn't say the same about his talent, or coaching, or (based on what little I can see from the outside) his leadership. That's partly because I just find it hard to understand how one of the very best leaders ever would behave in such a toxic way as Kings coach. It feels like anyone who is among the greatest leaders ever at least has enough common sense to not behave in that way when asked to lead an NBA team.

[70sFan]

The complexity today is completely different. That's why you have a whole coaching staff now, and are tracking guys every movement on synergy, and coming up with increasingly complex plays and counters and counter actions. The kernel of those things existed back then, but the level of sophistication is on another planet now. I have discussed this before, with reference to videos Thinking Basketball did on the 24 Wolves/Denver series.

Nobody denied that, but there is a vast space between today's level of sophistication and screaming "play harder", you know? You can agree that today's game is far more complex, while acknowledging that coaches strategies were already very developed back then, you know?

Russell is a legend, etc, etc. If we're talking about who had the greatest impact on the game, He is among the very top guys. I wouldn't say the same about his talent, or coaching, or (based on what little I can see from the outside) his leadership. That's partly because I just find it hard to understand how one of the very best leaders ever would behave in such a toxic way as Kings coach. It feels like anyone who is among the greatest leaders ever at least has enough common sense to not behave in that way when asked to lead an NBA team.

Do you know that people change with time? Circumstances can be different. From what I recall, Russell had a rough time in the 1980s from financial and psychological perspective. I know it may sound odd for people that treat basketball players like machines, but such things can change your "leadership abilities".

Russell came back to basketball after a decade strictly for financial reasons. He didn't care, that's his fault, but it didn't falsify everything he did before.

[The Explorer]

I guess worth noting also that when Russell 'coached', the role of the coach was completely different, and far more simplistic. You'd yell at guys to play harder, etc.

You mean like your modern coach in JJ Redick ?

There’s actually only one cheat code in the NBA, and that’s playing hard. If you play hard every night, you have a chance to win. If you don’t play hard every night, you’re probably going to lose.

“…You give yourself a chance to win every night if you play hard.”

[One_and_Done]

I guess worth noting also that when Russell 'coached', the role of the coach was completely different, and far more simplistic. You'd yell at guys to play harder, etc.

You mean like your modern coach in JJ Redick ?

There’s actually only one cheat code in the NBA, and that’s playing hard. If you play hard every night, you have a chance to win. If you don’t play hard every night, you’re probably going to lose.

“…You give yourself a chance to win every night if you play hard.”

I've listened to Reddick discuss basketball before. I'm pretty confident he's on another planet to Russell. That's not surprising, because he was a highly cerebral player in a time when the game was far more sophisticated. He certainly has an accurate understanding of what the NBA 60s was like.