The turning of the tides; teams have become too quick to dismiss their head men, ignoring the fact that coaching really does matter in the NBA

Basketball Digest, May-June, 2004 by Tom Kertes

THE CURRENT NBA COACHING carousel is reminiscent of the crazed carnival contraption in Alfred Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." All that's missing is the scared-out-of-its-collective-wits, screaming populace.

Or is it?

"I have never seen anything remotely like this," customarily unflappable NBA commissioner David Stern says, carefully shaking his grizzled head equally in the direction of the Eastern and Western Conferences. "And I very much doubt I ever will again. I'm not sure what this says about our league."

Try "too many teams are owned, general managed, and/or presidented by incompetent nincompoops lacking a clue in judging talent or even a semblance of the skill required to create a winning situation." Who then create instability with their eeny-meeny-miny-mo-ish decision-making.

Or you could just blame the San Antonio Spurs.

"In this league, it's all about winning," thoughtful New York Knicks swingman Shandon Anderson says. "When Michael Jordan or the Los Angeles Lakers were winning the championships, teams felt, 'Well, there is a difference in talent level.' But, with all due respect to Tim [Duncan] and San Antonio, once they won the title everyone started to feel 'Hmm, they're beatable. This is a vulnerable team. Right now, almost anybody can do it. So why aren't we in the championship mix?"

The next natural step is "cliche time": You can't trade all the players (although no one's told the Atlanta Hawks)--so get rid of the coach.

Teams have, and at an unprecedented rate, too: Since the end of last season, 17 of the 29 NBA teams have changed mentors, including an astonishing 14 of 15 in the Eastern Conference. Ironically, the doyen of Eastern mentors at present is obscure rookie coach Terry Stotts, who's been on the job with the Hawks all of 17 months. And with his forever futile team auctioning off all its assets--not to mention the new ownership coming in "any minute now"--the sword hanging over h/s head makes Damocles' weapon look like the puniest of pen knives.

Poor Randy Ayers; the novice Philadelphia 76ers filler barely had time to comment on Boston Celtics chief Jim O'Brien's quitting-slash-forced-departure--"He has built a great defense there. I don't understand that move at all--when he got unceremoniously canned himself. Yes, the once-proud Sixers--in the NBA Finals as recently as 2001--have now changed coaches twice in, what, the last five minutes?

And it's not like interim Philly babysitter Chris Ford is destined for the long term; after telling a missing-another-practice Allan Iverson, "Think of the example this sets for your teammates." The Answer answered with the immortal two-word expression--no, it's not what you think--"Trade me." Accompanied by a few hundred other words that were far less immortal (or printable).

Really, when you make only $17-18 million a year, why should you have to attend every practice? The nerve of these coaching characters, indeed.

Sure, the NBA is a players' league--and that's the way it should be. The fans don't pay to watch Flip Saunders flip another lid on the sidelines. As they say, it's not the coaching, it's the kaching. In fact, these days it's fashionable to hold the opinion that coaching in the pros really doesn't matter all that much. Fashionable--and wrong.

Sure, as the examples of Air Jordan, Shaq, and TD give incontrovertible proof, no coach is going to acquire the entire NBA enchilada sans sizzling talent. Nor is a midseason coaching change the panacea to all team problems (or problem teams). In more cases than not, the team will hustle extra for the new voice for a while--then things settle back to normal.

Still, it makes no sense to say that coaching doesn't matter--and then whine how coaches are responsible for the sad non-scoring state of the NBA. Both of those theories can't be correct. Obviously, the difference between winning and losing in the NBA is quite often the motivation a coach provides (or fails to provide) the players. And the system he instills. Or not.

Take the New Jersey Nets--please. Byron Scott got the not-so-long-ago woeful Jerseyites to back-to-back NBA Finals in the past two seasons, and had them in first place in the Atlantic Division again. But their record was only 21-20. The still tremendously-talented team was falling into a hole, including an abyss-real 47-point loss at the Memphis Grizzlies after which Jason Kidd tore into the coaching staff within the hearing of the world (and the media, which is worse). Fact was, you could cut the restless unhappiness around the Meadowlands with a knife.

So Scott was fired. Not only that, he was replaced by a guy who looks to be about 10 years old--and has never played organized hoops beyond CYA ball.

Scott, of course, was also a three-time NBA champion with the Lakers as a player. An outrageous move by GM Rod Thorn? Sure--on the surface.

The reality, however, was that Scott--earning a seven-figure salary--was not earning that salary and was uncommitted and unprepared by all accounts. The numbers don't lie: Jersey won its first 10 games in succession for the barely-adolescent interim Lawrence Frank, a new NBA record. The first nine victories were by double figures, a near record. Five in a row were on the road, a team record. The Nets' scoring defense went from 87.6 ppg under Scott to 77.3. Opponents throughout the streak have shot an unheard-of-in-the-NBA .394 (down from .429).