Red Auerbach - Coaching LegendUnlike my Kobe versus Michael discussion yesterday, this one at least can be argued either way – although I lean toward Jackson. The thing about coaching (unlike playing) is that almost any coach can be seen as great if he has great players. There is no particular reason to believe Jackson or Auerbach are better coaches than a hundred other people. They just happen to have had a tremendous roster. I’m not even sure but what I couldn’t have coached a few championships with the likes of Jordan, Pippen, O’Neal and Bryant. But, like anything else, it’s not about what might have been, but rather about what was.
The basics are that Red Auerbach coached the Celtics to eight consecutive NBA championships and 9 of 10 years. That’s more impressive on the surface than Phil Jackson, who won six championships in nine years with the Bulls only to follow that up with four championships in nine years with the Lakers. By winning the title a few days ago, Jackson broke out of a tie with Auerbach for most NBA titles – 10 to 9.
There is no way a person can argue about the players both coaches had – at least not for the purpose of saying one was more blessed than the other. Jordan is my #1 NBA player of all-time. O’Neal is just out of the top 10. Pippen and Bryant aren’t exactly chopped liver. On the other hand, Russell is a top 6 player, Cousy is a top 15 player and Sharman, Havlicek, Heinsohn and both Jones are in there somewhere. At least IMO, both coaches had great talent and championships should have been expected. I will say that they each won more than probably should have been assumed - which more than makes them worthy of #1 and #2 of all time.
Here are their careers side by side. Championship seasons are bolded.
| Phil Jackson | Red Auerbach | ||
| Chicago | .671 | Washington | .817 |
| Chicago | .744 | Washington | .583 |
| Chicago | .817 | Washington | .633 |
| Chicago | .695 | Tri Cities | .491 |
| Chicago | .671 | Boston | .565 |
| Chicago | .573 | Boston | .591 |
| Chicago | .878 | Boston | .648 |
| Chicago | .841 | Boston | .583 |
| Chicago | .756 | Boston | .500 |
| Los Angeles | .817 | Boston | .542 |
| Los Angeles | .683 | Boston | .611 |
| Los Angeles | .707 | Boston | .681 |
| Los Angeles | .610 | Boston | .722 |
| Los Angeles | .683 | Boston | .787 |
| Los Angeles | .549 | Boston | .722 |
| Los Angeles | .512 | Boston | .750 |
| Los Angeles | .695 | Boston | .725 |
| Los Angeles | .793 | Boston | .738 |
| Boston | .775 | ||
| Boston | .675 | ||
| Career | .705 | .662 | |
-
Of course, there were good players in the 60’s besides the Celtics, but even though there were a lot less teams, it’s my opinion that the percentage of quality players (per team) was lower in the 60’s. Having so much talent in one place gave Boston a huge advantage. At that time, a case could easily be made that the Celtics had three of the top 10 players in the league and maybe four of the top 20. That’s so much concentration that you can’t help but win.
The average number of teams during Auerbach’s championships was eight. The average number of teams during Jackson’s titles was 28. At the time the Celtics won nine of ten, they usually only had to play two playoff series. During Jackson’s title runs, his teams had to play four series. The more series you play, the greater the chance of being upset.
So, Jackson had a better regular-season winning percentage, has won one more title in two less years of coaching, and he overcame 27 competitors versus seven. If that weren’t enough, he also has a much better winning percentage in the playoffs – 70% versus 59%.
Auerbach was the pioneer for great coaches in professional basketball. In fact, I would suggest that nobody in the NFL or MLB can make as strong a claim to being as great a coach as Red. However, in the NBA, there is one who can. 100 years from now, Auerbach may be remembered more than Jackson because of the standard he set. But as of a few days ago, Jackson has had the superior career.
My first reaction as I was reading this blog was recalling John Wooden saying there are many great coaches who just don't have great players and go relatively unnoticed. Although, the thing about the coaches who are recognized for greatness is that they never get enough credit for managing the strongest personalities and biggest egos in sports like a movie director does with great actors. You have to be very tough and self assured to do that. Or you learn how to hang around well or both.
In reading about the deal that Auerbach orchestrated to get Russell in '57 showed guts, knowledge and determination on his part. I did not know Auerbach, like Wooden, coached for a long time before having great success. Thanks again to MM for good work here. Auerbach obviously suffered from the Lakers having Miken for so many years early in his career.
Someone made the case on TV during these past NBA Playoffs for Larry Brown being the best ever coach. Coach Brown couldn't stay in one place but he (almost) always won with whatever he had which sometimes wasn't much. His record with the Clippers is 64-53! In 25 NBA/ABA seasons Brown has had only five losing seasons and he has been hired to turn bad teams around often. Two of those losing seasons were the last two - the Knicks in '08 (hopeless) and the Bobcats this year (tough assignment but a guy like Brown has to work).
Jackson got to the Bulls the year before their first title as they were beginning to peak and he had no NBA head coaching experience. After that run, you can pick your next job. Had he first began with a team like the '04 Lakers, his record might be different. How did he get that Bulls job with no NBA head coaching experience? One factor in his situation now is that he is dating Jerry Buss' daughter. Hmmm.
Great coaches (and everyone else) know you need great players to win and they find a way to get that done however they can whether it's putting pressure on or convincing GM's and owners to invest in the talent they see in the league or lobbying to get a great job. It took Auerbach many years of not winning it all to realise you do EVERYTHING you can to get who you need. Red's distinction is he MADE the Celtics by getting Russell. Boston was never a NY or LA but he made it one of them just like Dallas, Pittsburg and SF in the NFL created their success and dynasties without unfair advantage.
Also, if you land a premiere job in sports usually in the biggest media centers (Lakers, Celtics, Yankees, Red Sox, Giants, Cowboys now) you are more likely to get championship talent where as 70% of the teams will most likely not have it at all. See KC Royals. Explain to me how the Lakers got the first pick in the '80 draft to get Magic and the first pick a few years later where they, I believe, picked up Worthy? This type of advantage gives any coach (Torre, Francona, Jackson, Rivers, Laughlin, Phillips, etc.) an unfair advantage. Who was it that raised a stink about the Lakers being "given" Gasol a few years ago? Archie Manning bullied the NFL and helped keep it unfair by pulling an Elway with Eli. Phil Ford threatened not to play for the lowly KC Kings and the NBA stood their ground. Ford quickly produced a division championship and two years later got the Kings to the Western Conference Finals. That makes the NBA better not handing All Stars to NY (wait for 2011 and see who LeBron ends up playing WITH in the Big Apple), Boston and LA.
You cannot argue after MM's very good concise presentation that Phil Jackson isn't the most successful coach in NBA history. Was he the best though? Maybe. Maybe not.
Again, you need a well researched book to get to the bottom of that.