4 ms·

Everyone focuses on Jordan but Jerry Krause is the one who makes the best case for being an asshole leading to great success. Many people seem to interpret bei

Everyone focuses on Jordan but Jerry Krause is the one who makes the best case for being an asshole leading to great success. Many people seem to interpret being an asshole as causal for success, but they're not even corelated. Michael Jordan may or may not be an asshole depending on when and who interacted with him, but he demanded the same absolute perfection from others that he did of himself. The problem was no one was as good as him so he essentially asked for more than they could ever deliver, leading to him taking it all on his shoulders. This inevitably lead to tensions with the "second tier" stars on the team like Pipen and Grant who likely felt they could handle both the burden and benefit of the spotlight. If there's a lesson here it's likely more on delegation and success of the team over individuals. Phil Jackson gets discounted as they guy who sat and watched Jordan do all the work, but he's won more NBA titles than anyone on the Bulls dream squad. He is someone who definitely does not present as an asshole.

dvtrn 6y ago
Jerry Krause is the one who makes the best case for being an asshole leading to great success. I agree with this summation fully, having said as much in many conversations on the topic since "The Last Dance" documentary aired and I discovered many of my friends were suddenly experts on the 90's era Bulls. Even the fans who swore they hated professional sports and couldn't separate Tony Kukoč from Tony Parker Phil Jackson gets discounted as they guy who sat and watched Jordan do all the work...He is someone who definitely does not present as an asshole. That's because the people who do this probably haven't bothered themselves to know anything more about Phil Jackson than the one they see on the court; a common malady of critiquing the human machinations of sports and sports personalities. Read any of his books (but maybe especially "Sacred Hoops"), enter his head space and see his motivations as player turned coach-they're amazing. Phil Jackson the younger wasn't quite the same man, but in 'Sacred Hoops' it's really interesting how Phil Jackson the older didn't rebuke his younger self, merely embraced him, molded him and constantly reflected back on that young man while coaching Mike. Phil says as much and cites especially when his father passed away, as the moment that allowed him a certain "freedom" to be himself. I'm taking a lot of these same lessons and applying them to my team at work, while reading my second Phil Jackson book, "More than a Game". Even taking his philosophies out of it, Phil Jackson was and I think still is an enormous student of the game-going all the way back even before his days playing for the Knicks, like you said-the man didn't just happen upon success because he found himself coaching stellar players, his willingness to buck traditional thought at the time in the NBA and embrace his assistant coaches "Triangle Offense" and successful integration of that into the Bulls played just as much a part in that team becoming who they did as Air Jordan's ability to defy gravity and hit buckets from just about anywhere on the court (except from the perimeter[1], consistently at least). --- [1] https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/18/21260106/michael-jordan-the-last-dance-evolution https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/18/21260106/michael-jor...
- jimbokun 6y ago
  Just read the Ringer link. It's an interesting take. But give Jordan one or two off seasons to adapt to the modern game, and he would be a good to great 3-point shooter. The article even mentions the NBA Finals game where he made 6 threes in the first half, just because. There are no DNA mutations between the players in the 90s and players today that made so many current NBA players better 3-point shooters. The owners and coaches favoring demanding those skill sets led to players practicing them more in order to increase their value. (And I've considered before blogging a take on Jordan-Pippen-Rodman playing the 3-4-5 could be the core of an amazing modern small-ball line up.)
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    I’d read that blog of yours in a heartbeat, otherwise I got nothing else to say. I agree completely with everything you’ve said here. Although regarding mutations I dunno I think Zion Williamson might be the next player to evolve the game, or continue the evolution its been undergoing since the Golden State run.
  - papeda 6y ago
    > > The article even mentions the NBA Finals game where he made 6 threes in the first half, just because. The 6 threes are a little weird because Portland insisted on guarding him with tons of space, essentially daring him to take what they viewed as a low-percentage shot. It's doubly weird to watch them repeatedly concede open 3s now -- it's not even a result of scrambled defensive rotations, they just watch him spot up and shoot. I think I agree with you though. The fact that he had such a lovely midrange game suggests he'd have picked up the 3 if he tried. Plus that first step and the need to pack the paint to guard against those weird hanging double clutch layups, he would have had space to shoot too. So I guess I'm making the tiresome argument that "your claim is probably right, but one specific bit of evidence is weak".
    - dvtrn 6y ago
      I mean you’re not wrong, I think it’s fair to say the three-point shooter was kind of a specialist position in that era of the NBA, which is what allowed guys like Steve Kerr to steal games in the final seconds (like he did against Utah in 97) BECAUSE nobody chased out to the perimeter, but this combined with the novelty of the Triangle Offense which exploited defenses eager to keep Mike out of the paint and kept the ball moving so that (yep, I’m going back to Phil Jackson here) “nobody felt like a spectator” just created those opportunities naturally, I think. Game is completely different now, guys like Kerr (current all time leader) and most recently Steph Curry has made perimeter defense more important than it ever has been. (Holy crap basketball analysis on HN, I’m loving this thread)
valuearb 6y ago
Krause was doing Reinsdorfs bidding when he refused to pay anyone. And after Michael left Krause didn’t just put together losing teams, they were the worst teams in the NBA.

dvtrn 6y ago

Jerry Krause is the one who makes the best case for being an asshole leading to great success. I agree with this summation fully, having said as much in many conversations on the topic since "The Last Dance" documentary aired and I discovered many of my friends were suddenly experts on the 90's era Bulls. Even the fans who swore they hated professional sports and couldn't separate Tony Kukoč from Tony Parker Phil Jackson gets discounted as they guy who sat and watched Jordan do all the work...He is someone who definitely does not present as an asshole. That's because the people who do this probably haven't bothered themselves to know anything more about Phil Jackson than the one they see on the court; a common malady of critiquing the human machinations of sports and sports personalities. Read any of his books (but maybe especially "Sacred Hoops"), enter his head space and see his motivations as player turned coach-they're amazing. Phil Jackson the younger wasn't quite the same man, but in 'Sacred Hoops' it's really interesting how Phil Jackson the older didn't rebuke his younger self, merely embraced him, molded him and constantly reflected back on that young man while coaching Mike. Phil says as much and cites especially when his father passed away, as the moment that allowed him a certain "freedom" to be himself. I'm taking a lot of these same lessons and applying them to my team at work, while reading my second Phil Jackson book, "More than a Game". Even taking his philosophies out of it, Phil Jackson was and I think still is an enormous student of the game-going all the way back even before his days playing for the Knicks, like you said-the man didn't just happen upon success because he found himself coaching stellar players, his willingness to buck traditional thought at the time in the NBA and embrace his assistant coaches "Triangle Offense" and successful integration of that into the Bulls played just as much a part in that team becoming who they did as Air Jordan's ability to defy gravity and hit buckets from just about anywhere on the court (except from the perimeter[1], consistently at least). --- [1] https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/18/21260106/michael-jordan-the-last-dance-evolution https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/5/18/21260106/michael-jor...

jimbokun 6y ago
Just read the Ringer link. It's an interesting take. But give Jordan one or two off seasons to adapt to the modern game, and he would be a good to great 3-point shooter. The article even mentions the NBA Finals game where he made 6 threes in the first half, just because. There are no DNA mutations between the players in the 90s and players today that made so many current NBA players better 3-point shooters. The owners and coaches favoring demanding those skill sets led to players practicing them more in order to increase their value. (And I've considered before blogging a take on Jordan-Pippen-Rodman playing the 3-4-5 could be the core of an amazing modern small-ball line up.)
- dvtrn 6y ago
  I’d read that blog of yours in a heartbeat, otherwise I got nothing else to say. I agree completely with everything you’ve said here. Although regarding mutations I dunno I think Zion Williamson might be the next player to evolve the game, or continue the evolution its been undergoing since the Golden State run.
- papeda 6y ago
  > > The article even mentions the NBA Finals game where he made 6 threes in the first half, just because. The 6 threes are a little weird because Portland insisted on guarding him with tons of space, essentially daring him to take what they viewed as a low-percentage shot. It's doubly weird to watch them repeatedly concede open 3s now -- it's not even a result of scrambled defensive rotations, they just watch him spot up and shoot. I think I agree with you though. The fact that he had such a lovely midrange game suggests he'd have picked up the 3 if he tried. Plus that first step and the need to pack the paint to guard against those weird hanging double clutch layups, he would have had space to shoot too. So I guess I'm making the tiresome argument that "your claim is probably right, but one specific bit of evidence is weak".
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    I mean you’re not wrong, I think it’s fair to say the three-point shooter was kind of a specialist position in that era of the NBA, which is what allowed guys like Steve Kerr to steal games in the final seconds (like he did against Utah in 97) BECAUSE nobody chased out to the perimeter, but this combined with the novelty of the Triangle Offense which exploited defenses eager to keep Mike out of the paint and kept the ball moving so that (yep, I’m going back to Phil Jackson here) “nobody felt like a spectator” just created those opportunities naturally, I think. Game is completely different now, guys like Kerr (current all time leader) and most recently Steph Curry has made perimeter defense more important than it ever has been. (Holy crap basketball analysis on HN, I’m loving this thread)

valuearb 6y ago

Krause was doing Reinsdorfs bidding when he refused to pay anyone. And after Michael left Krause didn’t just put together losing teams, they were the worst teams in the NBA.