GSOM Links: Sorting Out The Reactions To New Golden State Warriors Coach Mark Jackson

by Nate Parham on Jun 8, 2011 10:42 AM PDT in Links

If you agree with San Jose Mercury News columnist Tim Kawakami that this is "a major threshold moment" for the Golden State Warriors, then it's difficult to overstate the significance of the flurry of media attention over the last 36 hours or so.

Not long after learning that point guard-turned-broadcaster Mark Jackson would be taking the reigns of the team as its next head coach, we learned that New Orleans Hornets assistant Mike Malone would be joining his staff and then came the rumor of an Andre Iguodala for Monta Ellis trade.

But obviously, headlining everything is Jackson's lack of coaching experience as he makes the relatively rare transition from broadcast booth to sideline. The different reactions to everything have provided some interesting food for thought as we continue to debate whether he's ready to take the Warriors back to the playoffs.

Mark Jackson: Who will he be as a coach?

Jerry West: On Mark Jackson, Lacob, Malone, the latest Ellis report, and more | Talking Points
Kawakami reports that Doc Rivers says "he learned more from being in these production meetings with coaches, watch them go over things, than he would as assistant coach."

Golden State taking chance that Donnie Walsh and Knicks wouldn't by hiring Mark Jackson as coach
Rivers himself echoed a similar sentiment in an article by Mitch Lawrence of the New York Daily News: "I had a coach tell me, 'You didn't pay your dues, you never coached,'" Rivers said. "No, I was never an assistant. That's true. But I did pay my dues. When I was playing all those years in the NBA, I was paying my dues. Mark was doing the same thing."

Donnie Walsh Had Mark Jackson Pegged as Future Coach - NYTimes.com
But even in praising Mark Jackson as a potentially strong NBA coach, former New York Knicks executive Donnie Walsh mentioned reservations about putting an inexperienced coach in a situation that was expected to involve a lot of losing, which could be considered relevant to the Warriors: "Had Mike not shook loose from Phoenix, I probably would have hired Mark," Walsh said in a telephone interview. "But I felt I had to put Mike over Mark because he was a proven N.B.A. coach. "What I told Mike when I interviewed him was that we were going to lose for two years until we got things straightened out with the cap. I didn’t think it was fair to put a first-time coach in that situation. You know, it was a judgment call."

The Daily Madden " CBS San Francisco
On his daily KCBS radio spot, John Madden - who went the opposite direction, from coaching the Oakland Raiders to broadcasting for Fox - took it a step further, saying that he feels there isn't much carryover between broadcasting and coaching before launching into a litany of concerns: "I did both and...I'll tell you this: when I did television I worked hard. But I didn't work 10% as hard as I worked when I was a coach...It's not close. And there's not much carryover. And I think anyone that believes there is is stepping into something they don't want to and it's a big, big mistake."

Mark Jackson joins the Warriors’ new hierarchy of big personalities | Talking Points
In any event, Kawakami dropped an important piece of insight, writing that, "New executive board member Jerry West emphasized that Lacob felt a strong chemistry with Jackson, which was the most important thing for the Warriors to find in a coach." Knowing that there's some synergy between coach, front office, and ownership is definitely huge for the organization (see Blazers, 2009-11).

Steinmetz: Lacob's moves made with eye on free agency
And Matt Steinmetz adds that the chemistry extends to players, particularly potential free agent acquisitions: "You want to know why Jackson is a better coach for the Warriors than Keith Smart in Lacob's eyes? Because Lacob believes Jackson has a better chance to be a lure for players than Smart, plain and simple. Say what you want about Jackson, he is someone who many NBA players respect -- not just for playing 17 seasons in the league but because he has become a strong voice on basketball matters -- because of the forum he has on ABC and ESPN."

So what's most interesting about the unfolding response to Jackson's hire?

Whatever we feel about it, there appears to be a vast gulf in opinion between the fans and media that have absorbed Jackson on television vs. the coaches, executives, and players that talk to him in private. It's hard to recall a coach in recent history whose hiring not only drew such a wide range of responses, but also completely opposing opinions about his basketball acumen.

Why Mark Jackson as coach might work: Players love it | ProBasketballTalk
While everyone from Rivers to Walsh to Jeff Van Gundy to Nate Thurmond (and obviously Larry Riley) have praised Jackson's basketball acumen, Kurt Helin describes that fans have come to expect pretty much the exact opposite: "...when Jackson says something foolish — like in Game 3 when he suggested Dallas should stop letting Dwyane Wade shoot so many open jumpers and make one of the best penetrators in the league but the ball on the floor — you can bet twitter will light up with "that’s your coach, Warriors" comments."

The Interview That Got Mark Jackson The Warriors' Head Coach Job - From Our Editors - SBNation.com
Tom Ziller seemed to perfectly illustrate fan sentiment about Jackson in his mock interview that got him the coaching job.

Mark Jackson as Head Coach: Fingers Crossed, Again | Fast Break
Kawakami further describes why that fan sentiment that Jackson is "foolish" is so troubling for this particular franchise: "... this smacks a little bit of the time-honored Warriors tradition of settling for the consolation prize...And when you promise to make a splash in the coaching hunt, you want more than a guy most well known for his announcing catch phrases."

What Does the Coaching Record of other Broadcasters Say about ABC/ ESPN Analyst Mark Jackson's Chances for Success with the Golden State Warriors? - Golden State Of Mind
GSOM community member bradyk2 makes a point about public perception vs. private interactions that's worthy of consideration: "The reality is, the viewer sees Breen as a TV personality, because that’s what he’s known for, so the producer has him feed questions to the other guys, even though he may be very knowledgeable himself. The viewer sees Van Gundy as a coach, because that’s what he’s known for, so the producer has him talk about X’s and O’s. And the viewer sees Jackson as a player, because that’s what he’s known for, so the producer has him talk about things such as player mentality and locker room intensity, which aren’t as intellectual sounding as X’s and O’s. This is marketing, and it’s completely dictated by the producers."

Are they going for style over substance?
SF Chronicle columnist Gwen Knapp nicely summarizes why this particular difference about humor vs. basketball acumen might play an important role in Jackson's coaching success: "Humor has been known to help a coach, and the spirit of "you're better than that" might resonate with young players more than harsh feedback. In pro sports, half the job is avoiding the big tune-out from players inclined to offer respect grudgingly. Jackson's years as a player might help him keep ears open, but too much shtick tends to wear out athletes quickly.

- - -

The obvious reason for such a wide range of responses about whether his particular type of experience is sufficient and whether he even possesses the basketball acumen to succeed as a head coach is that he has no concrete coaching record to base opinions on.

And it's reasonable to expect that people will continue to hold on to their opinions until Jackson's record provides enough evidence to counter one side or the other.

Warriors Fan Confidence Poll

Last tallied on 06/08.

21|1:|0|100&chxt=x,y&chco=5098c7&chd=t:48

more regional sports

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 4 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Great post!

Can’t wait to be talking about him when the season starts.

_______________________________________________________________
The City: A Golden State Warriors-Centric NBA Blog

"It’s not all about stats…you’ve probably never played basketball in your life. There are things called intangibles. He is what you call a winner. Led his team to a national title. We need people who know how to win. He obviously has to be doing something right." (dhod)

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science." (Lord Kelvin)

by Evanz on Jun 8, 2011 10:52 AM PDT reply actions

Grown Man Post

I really hope Jackson uses his unique expressions and diction in post game interviews.

Ps. where’s Gov? He’s had to broke out of his depression/crying fit’s over this hire by now…

by tafkasam on Jun 8, 2011 10:57 AM PDT reply actions

rec'd

nicely done!
tons of info…almost too much

only followed a couple links, but this was classic

Joe Lacob, Warriors franchise owner: Mark, welcome to Oakland!

Mark Jackson: Hand down, man down!

Lacob: <quickly shakes Jackson’s hand> Uh, right. Indeed! Have a seat..

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Jun 8, 2011 11:13 AM PDT reply actions

Great work!

Just hope Jackson is less obnoxious as a coach than as a broadcaster. If says the words “manup”/"that was a “grown man” move" in the locker rm the team may lynch him.

by Only In Fairfax on Jun 8, 2011 12:21 PM PDT reply actions

Malone makes me feel a bit better anyway.

My hopefull fanboy inner brain says “they will be a great”. But then I heard a few repub friends claim that about the Bush/Chaney team as well. ]:-(.

by Only In Fairfax on Jun 8, 2011 12:26 PM PDT reply actions

They were a great team

It’s just their goals were probably not the same as yours….

by tafkasam on Jun 8, 2011 1:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

They were a very effective team

if you’re one of the Walton family, the Mellons or even Paris Hilton: 10 years of the Bush tax cuts have cost us $2.5 trillion, much of it to the names above and other billioniares.

Guardedly optimistic about MJax. I can see the Monte/Iggy deal, MJax, the Logo, all coming together to attract a free agent big man. Somehow find a 3rd guard and we can wait a year to acquire the other wing we need.

It paints a nice picture.

Be interesting to see what the fan poll reflects tomorrow.

One last thing: if these new guys (West, MJax, Lacob, Myers, etc…) are half as good as they THINK they are, dang, this is gonna be fun…

by WillyWhiteShoes on Jun 8, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions

10 years of the Bush tax cuts have cost us $2.5 trillion

“Us,” meaning Congress who spends our money so very wisely on businesses that are “too big to fail,” giving handouts and limos to political cronies and and sending handouts to Brazil so they can do offshore drilling instead of us? Even Obama hesitated to lower those taxes, knowing that it would hinder economic recovery.

(Also, according to Laffer, the economist who came up with the Laffer’s curve, raising taxes on the rich doesn’t increase revenue past a certain point. They just find ways around it).

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on Jun 8, 2011 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions

(Also, according to Laffer, the economist who came up with the Laffer’s curve, raising taxes on the rich doesn’t increase revenue past a certain point. They just find ways around it).

Skep’s curve is send them to mexico if they don’t want to pay what it takes to maintain a civil society. Down there income disparity is already just like our rich want it to be so why they hanging around here?
Someone’s gotta pay these bills and it should be those with the most to give not those with the least. Now they’ve taken it to the point where they are damaging the country’s credit rating which shows just how stupid they are. They don’t realize they gotta borrow money from those they are pissing off? :>)

Party'N Party'N , YEAH!! Party'N Party'N , YEAH!! Fun fun fun fun.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 8, 2011 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Skep’s curve is send them to mexico if they don’t want to pay what it takes to maintain a civil society

Spoken like a statist. Of course, if you send all the rich people away, they’ll take their money, their entrepreneurship and their jobs somewhere else. Hatred of the rich hurts the middle class and poor. It’s not productive.

Someone’s gotta pay these bills and it should be those with the most to give not those with the least.

The rich pay almost all of the bills already.

Our credit rating is being damaged, because Congress won’t stop spending. That’s the real cause. While financial institutions severely hurt the economy, Congress could have prevented that, too. Instead, they sat on their hands. Obama was part of one of the Congresses that were at fault, by the way. For some insane reason, America elected a Washington insider, who is doing the same thing insiders have always done, except he has doubled down on it.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on Jun 9, 2011 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions

Hatred of the rich

It’s not hatred of the rich it’s hatred of the greedy. Truly rich people no matter what their income care about their fellow man and don’t mind helping them out. If someone wants to make this like Mexico then we can do better without them, their void will be filled with a more compassionate crop of humanity. Check up on historic income tax rates and you’ll see how easy these crybabies have it now compared to their fathers who made this a great country.

Party'N Party'N , YEAH!! Party'N Party'N , YEAH!! Fun fun fun fun.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 9, 2011 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions

How does the gov’t measure greed? They can only measure wealth. It’s also no the job of the gov’t to punish people for their emotions. Your desire to control rich people with such harsh methods and your label of “greedy,” does imply a hatred. I think it’s absurd.

Those tax rates resulted in all sorts of problems. They have it easy now, as they should. This is America, where the gov’t isn’t supposed to oppress people, the way you would have them do. How about you not be such a control freak and not worry about who is greedy and not greedy and just respect that people have rights, and the gov’t has no business extorting money from rich and “greedy” people to the degree that you suggest they should.

I say taxes should never go above about 20%, give or take. Otherwise, you take away incentive to take risks and create businesses. Where is the motivation to take such huge risks and experience enormous stress, when the pay-off is to be ripped off by a bunch of self-righteous and corrupt politicians?

Ultimately, oppressing “greedy” entrepreneurs results in killing jobs and destroying the middle class.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on Jun 10, 2011 4:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Ultimately, oppressing "greedy" entrepreneurs results in killing jobs and destroying the middle class.

No, income disparity kills off the middle class. The more money at the top and at the bottom the less for the middle .
Every extra dollar the super rich take is one less dollar that the middle class loses. A country full of poor workers and filthy rich bosses is not as strong as a country full of middle class workers and merely rich bosses. Even old Henry Ford knew that .

Party'N Party'N , YEAH!! Party'N Party'N , YEAH!! Fun fun fun fun.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 10, 2011 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions

No, income disparity kills off the middle class. The more money at the top and at the bottom the less for the middle .

That’s redundant. That’s like saying, “A lack of a middle class causes income disparity.” You’re not pointing out the cause here.

Every extra dollar the super rich take is one less dollar that the middle class loses.

That sounds logical. The problem is, the middle-class grew during the Reagan administration and many in the middle-class became rich. Small government and education result in a large middle class.

A country full of poor workers and filthy rich bosses is not as strong as a country full of middle class workers and merely rich bosses

Clearly, we ought not have policies that favor the filthy rich. That said, Obama wants to place huge burdens on small business owners. Therein lies the problem.

As a side note, I think the filthy rich have a right to be filthy rich, in a free society. The gov’t shouldn’t punish the “greedy” (the filthy rich), anymore than they should punish the envious (far left statists).

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on Jun 10, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Also, according to Laffer, the economist who came up with the Laffer’s curve, raising taxes on the rich doesn’t increase revenue past a certain point. They just find ways around it

Not sure where you are on Laffer, from your statement. If you’re implying we can’t raise taxes because the top rate is too high, well, then you sir, are high. When was the last time the top rate was lower than it is now?

I’ll wait.

(hint: the top bracket was higher during the great Clinton economy, higher also under Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Ike….. so we have “room” even under the laughable Laffer to take the top bracket back up)

I’d settle for digging out of this economic disaster, in part by returning to Clinton era rates for those with much, who have yet been asked to share the sacrifice (ie. the top 2%)

Laffer was discredited when Reagan used it to triple our national debt from one to three trillion.

back to GSW: now that we have passed the initial blast of news from the hire/Iggy rumor period, I’m really hungry for more.

Can’t wait for another shoe to drop…

Off-season: time for eternal optimism

by WillyWhiteShoes on Jun 9, 2011 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions

If you’re implying we can’t raise taxes because the top rate is too high, well, then you sir, are high. When was the last time the top rate was lower than it is now?

Reagan administration, when the economy was booming. We COULD raise taxes, but not only would the Federal gov’t not get more revenue, rich people would avoid spending in the U.S. Corporations will continue to move their businesses abroad.

Much of the problem is with state governments, actually. Texas has produced 38% of the new jobs in the ENTIRE U.S. So clearly, our current Federal tax rate is acceptable. It’s the state governments that are failing us miserably, except Texas and a couple other business-friendly, low-tax states.

part by returning to Clinton era rates for those with much, who have yet been asked to share the sacrifice[/quote]Not only did the Clinton administration end in recession (the “Bush recession” emerged prior to any of Bush’s policies having a single effect), I don’t see the purpose of raising taxes anymore.

Again, so Congress can waste more money on big businesses and giving money away to Brazil for offshore drilling (meanwhile, banning our offshore drilling).

Furthermore, Laffer has been partially discredited, although there is good evidence that raising taxes on the richest does no good at all. They’re too good at avoiding paying, so when it gets past a certain point, revenues do not increase and begin to decrease, depending on where on the curve you are.

The Reagan administration, in fact, had excellent tax revenues. The problem was that the Dems and Reagan both spent a huge amount on their respective projects, the Dems, social, Reagan, military and economic. The result was simply a MASSIVE amount of spending, but not as bad as Bush and much better than Obama.

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on Jun 9, 2011 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Bush/Cheney WERE great ;).

I'm the soul brotha' like no other!

by Naticus on Jun 8, 2011 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions

That is certainly true……

by Only In Fairfax on Jun 8, 2011 2:31 PM PDT reply actions

Don Jackson

Shut up, just shut up. You had me at "cure for Cohan".

by Baygiant11 on Jun 8, 2011 2:47 PM PDT reply actions 3 recs

“ooooo, now THAT was a grown man’s steal Steph Curr-ah”

"There’s no such thing as off the charts, just get a bigger piece of paper. If you can’t figure that out you shouldn’t be charting anything" - Skep

by Duby Dub Dubs on Jun 9, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

lol yes!

i wonder if he’ll feel the need to commentate the game while coaching. Jeremy Lin could be his JVG

Shut up, just shut up. You had me at "cure for Cohan".

by Baygiant11 on Jun 10, 2011 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Why is it From "broadcast booth" to head coach?

I keep reading about the success of broadcasters becoming coaches. That is just WHACK to me.

The W’s hired Jackson because he was a player in the NBA for 17 years, who then had a layover in broadcasting.

I think that’s a terrific combination, because after years of being in the trenches and understanding what the league is about, Jackson’s time as commentator gave him a fresh perspective on the league and the ability to observe the league, it’s trends and players as an objective observer.

that to me is a perfect combination for a modern day head coach.

I’m very happy with the hire.

by joegiant on Jun 8, 2011 11:27 PM PDT reply actions

that to me is a perfect combination for a modern day head coach.

So modern day is no coaching experience? What happened to pay your dues and earn the job? This guy has less coaching cred than Keith Smart so why so happy?

Party'N Party'N , YEAH!! Party'N Party'N , YEAH!! Fun fun fun fun.

by Skeptic con Urquell on Jun 9, 2011 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions