Monday, November 12, 2012

The Unfortunate Jobbing of Mike Brown




A lot of Laker fans were probably upset when they learned that the Los Angeles Lakers had elected to hire Mike D’Antoni as their new head coach instead of Phil Jackson.   I’m not a Lakers fan (I’m the exact opposite, in fact), but I was pretty upset, too.   Actually, I was upset before that announcement even happened.   I started to get angry around November 9, 2012.  You see, that was the day the Lakers fired Mike Brown.  And I was angry because Brown is a hard-working, talented NBA coach who got the shaft.  

 In the 2011-2012 NBA season, Mike Brown coached the Lakers to the playoffs and a very solid 41-25 record in the lockout-shortened season.   Over the offseason, Brown was handed a completely overhauled roster that included the additions of Dwight Howard (who hadn’t played basketball at all in half a year) and Steve Nash, two of the most unique offensive talents in NBA history.  In addition to that upheaval, Brown decided to implement a new offensive system, the Princeton offense.  Obviously, this was a lot to undertake.  And unsurprisingly, the Lakers struggled out of the gate.  It didn’t help that Nash immediately got himself injured.   Under those circumstances, you would expect a team to have patience with their coach and new roster.  And that is exactly what the Lakers seemed to do on the surface:  amidst all the rumors concerning the supposed job jeopardy of Mike Brown, Jim Buss, the executive vice president of the Lakers, came out on November 8, 2012 to say that he had “no problems with Mike Brown at all”, and that he was still very confident in the coach.  Of course, we know that Brown ended up getting axe less than forty-eight hours later.

Putting aside the obvious issues of professionalism and courtesy in firing a man so shortly after giving such a vote of confidence, there are a number of reasons why firing Brown comes across as an entirely asinine move.   Foremost among them is the fact that Brown was given only five games to make his case with an entirely new roster.  Yes, the Lakers went 1 and 4 in those games.    But the teams they lost to (the Mavericks, the Blazers, the Clippers, and the Jazz) all figure to be playoff teams in the ultra-competitive Western Conference.  The Lakers were also dealing with the absence of Nash, and a rusty Howard playing himself into shape. 

Despite all that, and despite all the criticisms of the Princeton offense, the Lakers boasted the third most efficient offense in the league prior to the firing of Mike Brown.    Contrary to popular belief, the real problem with the Lakers lay less with offense and more with the other side of the ball, where they ranked among the worst ten teams in the league in terms of defensive efficiency.  It’s worth noting that Brown is considered a defensive whiz: over his last five years as a coach in Cleveland, the Cavaliers were on average the seventh best team in the league in terms of defensive efficiency, and never ranked outside the top eleven.   It stands to reason that, given the defensive expertise of their coach, the Lakers would have eventually worked things out on that end, especially as Dwight Howard, arguably the best defender and eraser of defensive mistakes in the entire NBA, rounded into shape.  All that of course, provided Brown had been given more than five games to work things out.

Only five games. That is the most frustrating and shocking part of this entire conversation.  Five games for a former NBA coach of the year, and a man whom the Lakers offered an estimated $18 million contract just a year and a half ago.   It appears the Lakers brass have an attention span as short as that of their fans, which is not a good position for an organization to be in.  Because those some fans may not remember that just two seasons ago, the current world champion Heat where in a situation very similar to the one the Lakers are in now.  They had just made two high profile acquisitions (LeBron James and Chris Bosh), and the coach was a then-unknown former video coordinator named Erik Spoelstra.  Just like this current Lakers team, at first the Heat struggled.  Fifteen games into the 2011 season, the Heat, who had seemed nigh unbeatable prior to the season, were only 8-7.   

Fans and media alike piled atop Spoelstra, claiming that he was overmatched and calling for the instatement of a much bigger name coach, Pat Riley.  Of course, the rest is history.  Later that same November, the Heat rattled off a 12-game winning streak and never looked back on the way to that NBA Finals that season, and an NBA championship the next year.  But here is the important thing:  none of that would have ever happened if Heat owner Mickey Arison had listened to all the lame-brains on Bleacher Report and on talk radio who called for the ousting of Spoelstra.  In the NBA, just like any other sport, the development of chemistry and cohesion takes time and patience.  Spoelstra himself acknowledges that in his first season with the Heat, he had no idea what to do with the Big 3 from a strategic standpoint.  With talents as monumental and unique as Bosh, LeBron, and Wade, he needed time to figure out how to make it work.  The Heat front office gave him that time, and they ultimately reaped the rewards with an NBA title shortly thereafter.  The Lakers would have been wise to learn from that experience.

Instead, they fire Mike Brown and hire…Mike D’Antoni?  Now, this is where my discontent mutates into full blown rage.  I don’t think that Phil Jackson would have necessarily done a better job as coach of the Los Angeles Lakers then Mike Brown.  But I can understand why the Lakers would prefer him as coach.  After all, Jackson has a history in L.A., a history with Kobe Bryant, and above all else, he has eleven championship rings.  His resume speaks for itself.  But D’Antoni?  The same guy who was run out of New York on a rail half a year ago?  The same guy who has never even coached a team to a conference final  (Mike Brown has coached eighty-three career playoff games for a winning percentage of .566, compared to fifty-games for D’Antoni and a .473 winning percentage)?   The Lakers plan to entrust the defensive development of this struggling Lakers team to D’Antoni, a man who was notoriously forced by the New York Knicks to employ Mike Woodson as a “defensive coordinator” because he couldn’t coach that side of the ball himself? 

The decision simply makes no sense.  The Lakers, who have seventeen NBA championship banners in the rafters, simply allowed themselves to be manipulated by fan and media speculation, factors that a franchise of this caliber should be above even acknowledging.  As a result, they made a decision that they will come to regret.  The Lakers may eventually win under D’Antoni, but it will take time.  These things always do.  And the price of it all was the reputation and dignity of a hard-working, self-made man like Mike Brown.  Brown deserved the chance to make this work.  Perhaps the best indicator of all about the unfairness of this firing was the rampant speculation that it fueled concerning who exactly got Brown fired. 

Was it Kobe Bryant? Magic Johnson? Owner Jerry Buss himself?  The fact that people even asked those questions says a lot.  Bad coaches don’t need anyone to “get them fired”.  When Vinny Del Negro is canned by the Clippers at some point this season or next, no one will question who “got him fired”.  We’ve seen Vinny Del Negro work, and we know what he is capable of.  He doesn’t deserve the job.  Simple as that. Mike Brown didn’t deserve what he got on November 9th.  And I doubt Brown will spend much time crying over the situation himself.  He will still collect a cool $10 million from the Lakers even after being fired.  And, of course, Brown isn’t the first coach in the NBA to be wrongfully let go.  But that doesn’t mean it’s OK.  Because this isn’t my job, or your job.  This is the NBA.  And I want to believe that this is one of the few places in the world where the most skilled individuals get the job, and get to keep it or lose it based on their own merit.  That regardless of name recognition, or past accomplishments, or of connections, everyone will get a fair shake and the cream will rise to the top.  Unfortunately for us, though, and for Mike Brown, he didn’t get a fair shake.  Not even a little. And today the NBA is a little sadder place for that very fact.

No comments: