Batman or Superman? Bacon or chocolate? Elvis or Michael Jackson? Karl or Wilkens?
These are some of the questions that have dominated the American dinner table throughout history. Okay, perhaps not the last one. For any Sonics fan, though, that question is the equivalent of some of the great debate topics in popular culture.
Who is the greatest coach in Seattle SuperSonics history? You can make a case for either one of them. George Karl has the highest winning percentage in club history and three 60-win seasons to his name. However, Lenny Wilkens can write on his resume that he led the only SuperSonics championship team. Their accomplishments may cause many people to declare them ranked 1A and 1B.
I’m not one of those people.
In the second half of my series examining and ranking the coaches of team history, I examine the hardest question of all: Karl or Wilkens? Breaking away from my usual format of simply going up the list, I thought I’d begin by surveying the coaching legacy of each of the distinguished leaders individually. I do this partially because I feel each man deserves his own piece, and also because I’ve learned that long pieces will quickly lose the attention of the average sports fan.
I begin with the coach who's been with the team since nearly the beginning. Calm, cool, and a snazzy dresser, let’s take a look at Lenny Wilkens.
Coaching Career, 1969-72 & 1977-85 (478-402, .543)
When Al Bianchi left the team in the summer of '69, general manager Dick Vertlieb didn’t look too far or spend too much time figuring out a replacement. Just a day after Bianchi’s sudden departure, Vertlieb said he already began considering Wilkens, his star point guard, for the dual role of player-coach. Though surprised by the offer, Wilkens, who had only been with the team for one season, fortunately accepted.
Wilkens’ first stint with the Sonics, lasting all of three years, was unspectacular, compiling just a 121-125 record and no playoff appearances. That’s not to suggest it wasn’t a job well-done, though. Every season he reigned as a player-coach saw a win increase from the season before, as he inherited a 30-win team and bumped that total to 36, 38, and finally, 47.
In addition, Wilkens was able to oversee progress year in and year out despite what the team had to endure. From Bob Rule’s potentially superstar career being derailed due to a tragic Achilles injury, to the court trials of Spencer Haywood, Wilkens had to manage a roster that was continuously morphing in its character. As a matter of fact, only five players from Wilkens’ initial season, including himself, were still on the roster by the end of his first term.
Perhaps even more indicative of a coach’s impact is not how the team performs while he’s the coach, but how the team performs once he leaves. Following the 1971-72 season, Wilkens was given a choice to be either solely a coach or solely a player. He chose to keep on playing but then was shipped off, along with forward Barry Clemens, to Cleveland for All-Star point guard Butch Beard.
With that trade, it was like back to year one all over again. After coming off a franchise best 47-35, the Sonics dropped 21 games, finishing 26-56, their worst record since their inaugural season.
How much of that decline was due to the loss of Wilkens? In all fairness, losing Wilkens the player probably contributed more losses than losing Wilkens the coach. In his last season playing in Seattle, he averaged 18.0 points per game, along with a career-high 9.6 assists per game. The blow of losing the future Hall of Famer wasn’t softened by the fact that Beard looked anything but an All-Star, putting up a meager 6.6 PPG in his only season in Seattle. It also didn’t help that Wilkens’ replacement on the sideline, Tom Nissalke, was so incompetent that his players wanted, and succeeded in getting, him fired. Still, it’s hard to believe that Wilkens would not have been able to manage a team with Haywood, an emerging Fred Brown, and a veteran Dick Snyder significantly better than his successor.
What’s another indication Wilkens did a good job? His team wanted him back. After retiring from playing and a short stint as head coach of the Portland Trail Blazers, Wilkens returned to the team as director of player personnel. Following a disastrous start to the 1977-78 season, in which the team managed a 5-17 record in Bob Hopkins’ first year as coach, Hopkins received the axe. With the club on a sinking ship, Wilkens put on his Superman cape and came to the rescue, taking up his old role as head coach.
Improving a team that is fighting to stay out of last place is no easy task. Just ask Mike D’Antoni or Brett Brown. Time is needed to nurture and grow a team, and progress tends to drag on and be painful.
Then again, perhaps not if the man in charge of the team is Lenny Wilkens.
He took a squad that had only won five games in 22 tries, and immediately they won six consecutive to begin Wilkens’ second stint with the Sonics, with the first three of those games being on the road. Seattle won their first 11 of 12 games with Wilkens back on the sideline, including two games by at least 32 points. This was the beginning of the first golden era in team history.
Under Wilkens, the team that looked doomed for the cellar played 42-18 the rest of the way, or the equivalent of 57 wins throughout the course of an entire season. In comparison, under Hopkins, the Sonics were on pace to win 19 games. For perspective, a 38 game difference is even greater than what the Phoenix Suns achieved in 2004-05 after the acquisition of Steve Nash. Of course, the difference here is that the Sonics didn’t have to add an MVP-caliber player.
Seattle wound up making the NBA Finals before losing to the Washington Bullets in seven games. The next year saw the team improve to a franchise record 52-30, forcing a rematch against Washington for the championship. This time, they won, winning four in a row after dropping Game One. Like a mechanic turning a junkyard mess into a Maserati, Wilkens transformed and led the SuperSonics to their first ever NBA championship.
The following year saw even more improvement, as the team finished 56-26. Unfortunately, they ran into Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and the Los Angeles Lakers. The remainder of Wilkens' tenure would see the team gradually decline, as Seattle saw the departure of Dennis Johnson, the departure of Gus Williams, and the slow aging of Fred Brown. After the Sonics finished the 1984-85 season with just a 31-51 record, management felt it best to move in a new direction. Out was Wilkens, and in was Bernie Bickerstaff.
Legacy
Though Wilkens’ ending wasn’t exactly one out of a fairy tale, it didn’t need to be, as he had already cemented his place in team history. He did what coaching greats like Mike Holmgren, Lou Piniella, and George Karl could never do, and that was bring a championship trophy to Seattle.
Not only that, but he did it with a team that really lacked the look of a champion. Though DJ, Williams, Brown, and Jack Sikma were all phenomenal players in their own right, they never possessed the superstar power akin to that of Michael Jordan or LeBron James. When the Sonics won, it was because of the team, not any individuals.
At the time of his departure, Wilkens had given Seattle one title, two Finals appearances, and their four winningest seasons in team history up to that point. Wilkens, perhaps just as much as any individual in sports history, showed a team could win with any pieces, as long as those pieces are used properly.
Comments
Great article, Max.
I agree with your placement (just as I think the ‘96 team was better than the championship team, trophy or not). It can’t be understated just what Wilkens brought to this team, both during his tenures as coach, and even afterward when he eventually became an executive. Wilkens, honestly, put Seattle sports on the map.
By Matt Tucker on 03.20.14 7:54am
Lenny changed everything
Before Lenny became the coach, Supersonics were a winter sports team and forgotten before and after the season at school. When Lenny took over and we started winning, it completely changed the chatter. We were becoming a championship team — that was different. I feel like Lenny changed the sports talk in Seattle by showing us what it was like to be a World Champion. It’s what made the Sonics such an important part of Seattle, like the Space Needle. Something iconic that becomes a part of the spirit of the city. At least that is what it was like for me growing up during this time.
Something to be proud of.
By Catherine Boland on 03.20.14 8:22am
Mainly true except for one thing
The fans. Even during their early seasons when they were consistent losers, the Sonics drew large and enthusiastic crowds. In those days there were no Mariners or Seahawks or even Sounders, so Seattle was somewhat akin to Portland or Sacramento: only one major sports team in town, so it was well-supported.
You are correct though about winning making a difference. Not in support per se (although obviously the crowds became larger, in fact the Sonics broke a number of NBA attendance records after those magical seasons), but in attitude. Seattle didn’t have to view itself as a town of losing teams but rather as a town with championship potential.
By mkt42 on 03.20.14 12:05pm
Can someone explain the sudden drastic drop in attendance for three years in the mid 80s?? Then the sudden rise..
http://www.databasebasketball.com/teams/teamatt.htm?tm=sea&lg=n
By VoxMediaUser704744 on 03.20.14 1:48pm
The drop is easier to explain than the rise
After the peak of the championship, the Sonics entered into a long decline phase, during which they were still a decent team but not championship contenders. And then they fell below .500 for a few years. Meanwhile the Seahaws got Knox and Warner and made the playoffs for the first time and even advanced to the AFC championship game.
I still have one of the freebies that they gave away at a Sonics game during that period: a button that says “I was a Sonics fan when being a Sonics fan wasn’t Cool.”
The rise is harder to explain. For hard-core fans it’s pretty easy: the team rebuilt and started winning again, moreover with some interesting players: the 20-point scoring trio of Ellis, McDaniel, and Chambers plus McMillan at PG. But that same trio was around in 1986-87, when attendance was low, and 1987-88, when attendance shot up.
The 1987 and 1988 Sonics teams didn’t see especially dramatic increases in wins. But what of course did happen in 1987 was that the Sonics had a mini-Cinderella playoff run, making it all the way to the western conference finals. That may very well have grabbed the casual fans’ attention.
And one possible explanation is that fans are usually slow to react to changes in team quality. I believe that teams achieve their highest attendance levels the season AFTER they win a championship, because now the casual fans finally know that they have a winner in town. So the casual fans’ time lag might be one reason why attendance didn’t rise until 1987-88.
However I suspect that the real reason is that the Sonics revamped their marketing strategies. Hard-core fans don’t need to be sold on a team, they’re avidly following it already. My guess is that the Sonics started using more effective advertising or game promotion gimmicks.
By mkt42 on 03.22.14 12:40pm
Usually it's a gradual decline
This was like a 3 thousand a game, (30% plus)decline all at once..then a 3k increase all at once.
By VoxMediaUser704744 on 03.22.14 1:45pm
I grew up in Southern WA state so everything was on the radio
I remember the Blazers being equally as popular in my elementary school as the Sonics. However, everyone seemed to know the Sonics were the better team and so when Lenny took over and they began to win it was a very cool time to be kid.
I’m guessing similar to how many kids will remember this past year with the Seahawks about 35 to 40 years from now.
By Catherine Boland on 03.20.14 4:51pm
Two things to add about Wilkens
I don’t know of any coach in any sport who has had such an immediate and extreme impact on a team. With the exact same roster, he took a 5-17 team and went 42-18 the rest of the way with them, and all the way to Game 7 of the Finals. I have never seen a coach make such a difference.
Karl took a perennial .500 team and made it into a 60-win team, but that’s not nearly as big an increase (granted, the coaches of those .500 teams were not bad coaches, unlike Hopkins), and got only one finals appearance out of his teams, thanks in no small part to Karl’s teams’ tendencies to fall flat on their faces in the first round of the playoffs.
Although our primary focus must be on what they did while with the Sonics, it is interesting to compare their non-Sonics coaching careers. Both Wilkens and Karl have excellent track records of taking the reins of sad sack teams and quickly turning them into winners. Karl managed to wear out his welcome quickly in his first two gigs, Cleveland and Golden State after initial success. After that of course he proved himself to be one of the all-time best regular season coaches (but only middling in the playoffs). Wilkens also took on the perennially losing Cleveland team and made them into winners, but managed to stick around for quite awhile. He even got Toronto into the playoffs two years in a row, an achievement on a par with Larry Brown getting the Clippers into the playoffs two years in a row (this was when the Clippers were consistent big losers, the way that Toronto has usually been). Wilkens finally had a bust when he took over the Knicks, but the Knicks have become the poster child for teams owned by a man with a lot of money but little wisdom; no one has looked good in that ongoing train wreck of a franchise.
As for the Sonics, pretty each choice to me. Back-to-back finals appearances, a championship, and the most magical Cinderella season of any Seattle team (1977-78). Compared to a single finals appearance and no championships. And probably the most infamous playoff flop of any Seattle team.
Just about any team would be lucky to have had George Karl be their coach, and he did great things for the Sonics. Probable Hall of Fame coach. But the Sonics are fortunate in having had an even greater coach: Lenny Wilkens.
By mkt42 on 03.20.14 12:01pm
Good points
Thanks Max. Good job!
By SonicsUberAlles on 03.20.14 12:38pm
It would be interesting to wonder how it would have turned out if it was Karl who took over the 1977 team from Hopkins instead of Lenny
(Granted, he wasn’t a coach yet.)…and vise versa..if Lenny took over for KC jones…I think they were BOTH the right coaches at the right time.
By VoxMediaUser704744 on 03.20.14 12:33pm
Excellent thoughts
Conjecture at its best
By SonicsUberAlles on 03.20.14 12:42pm
Karl coaching DJ
Interesting.
By VoxMediaUser704744 on 03.20.14 1:28pm
On the one hand, maybe no more difficult than coaching Gary Payton
OTOH, I think the situation was more about DJ than about who was coaching him. DJ has said that he was headstrong and immature, I suspect he would’ve clashed with any coach. Although Karl overall gets along well with his players, he had some famous clashes. Wilkens was even more known for being, if not a players’ coach, a coach who could get along with his players. But the DJ-vs-Wilkens relationship nonetheless broke up.
Maybe Phil Jackson could’ve turned DJ’s head; my guess is that no other coach could’ve.
By mkt42 on 03.22.14 12:19pm
the greatest
to me, lenny will always be the most significant sonic of them all. i adore karl, so no disrespect whatsoever. BUT lenny was a hall-of-fame player who came in as coach, took us to two consecutive finals, and won our sole (so far!) nba title.
By charliesonic on 03.21.14 6:10am
One could assume that just because
The 96 team could beat the 79 team that Karl should be on top of the heap. Talent doesn’t always translate to having the best coach. Lenny won it all and made it two years in a row to the finals without choking like Karl teams sometimes did. I do love Karl however.
By VoxMediaUser704744 on 03.24.14 6:08pm