To Natt, Or Not To Natt?

how will I know what to think?

Totaled, the 42 teams listed averaged a 14-20 record (41%) prior to changing coaches, and an 18-30 record (38%) after changing coaches. The average change took place 34 games into the 82 game season.

So 25 out of 45 improved their record.

Taking into account that our current record is at .235, it seems the odds are we won’t do much worse (unless we hire Natt); Only 5 times did the replacements have a record under .22. (5 out of 42, those are odds I’m willing to take).

I’m giving Pritchard a break since he played less games and the difference is like .4 %.

I’d always get Natt and Sloan confused

and 9 of the teams that were as bad or worse than the Kings did get better.

What really is surprising is how many teams chose to change coaches with a record of 45% or better. 14 in total.

It’s the same group of guys rotating from one high-paying gig to the next. Even for awful teams, they just keep hiring guys with track records that aren’t exactly stellar. If your team is awful, and you can’t get a legend, think outside the box instead of getting another retread.

And with that being said, firing Westphal would be horribly premature.

I doubt know about you, but if I were to get a blowout on a retread, I’d replace it with a new one.

The Sacramento Kings have changed coaches during the season six times. The average record prior to making the change is 13-28. The average record after making the change is …13-28. The average timing for the change happens at the exact halfway point of the season.

Why does this somehow make sense?

Stan Van Gundy for Pat Riley. I’d take either of those 2 guys (even though I hate Riley) over Westphal. They aren’t around. I’d take Avery Johnson over Westphal, but, again, he isn’t available (and wouldn’t have coached for what the Kings were offering).

Some of the improvements were Lawrence Frank who had Jason Kidd. That situation doesn’t exist here. I mentioned Carleismo in another thread, but I"ll mention it here for posterity. Say whatever you want about Brooks, PJ Carleismo played Kevin Durant at SG for defensive purposes, and if you can’t figure out the stupidity in that logic, well, you’re PJ Carleismo. The point is Scott Brooks made the Thunder a better team by making a simple move. Sam Presti used a draft pick gained from San Antonio to acquire Thabo Sefalosha. Long & short, the Kings don’t have the numerous amount of assets Sam Presti had when he came to Seattle as the GM. I’m not taking anything from Presti; I’m pointing out that Presti has done a terrific job maximizing his assets. People are forgetting that this Kings team doesn’t have the talent that last year’s Thunder team had (starting with Durant). It’s just the way these things go sometimes.

All I know is that the problems with this team mainly revolves around the difficulties and nearly impossible moments of playing youth in the NBA. There are exceptions, but not many. People point to OKC, but the fact is a lot of things went right for them too. Plus, it’s worth remembering that this is Tyreke’s 2nd season, and Durant didn’t lead OKC to the playoffs until his 3rd season.

I was hoping this team would make a playoff run. I was expecting more wins and competitive basketball early on. No question I was expecting that. But at some point we have to recognize that these young guys, many of whom are NBA players, aren’t quite ready to come together as a group and become winners that the NBA requires players to be. How Paul Westphal factors into that is a matter of opihion, but 214’s opinion is the one i agree with most: Paul Westphal is a caretaker. Until he shows otherwise, I’ll keep saying that.

I think more than a coaching change is needed. I think an overall front office cleaning should precede any coaching changes.

Anyone up for letting Petrie move on and letting Pritchard take his spot?

There’s not even much argument that our GM and head coach have underperformed of late – but the best reason any of us can think of to keep them around is that there’s nobody better to replace them.

How sad is that?

Ok, so a few people have pointed out that overall teams improved with the new coach. However, the list gives us very little about the player development or long-term health of the team.

One thing I did notice about the list is of the changes on the list, only 5 changes led to a better long term change (Brooks, D’Antoni, Frank, Johnson and Karl). And one of those was a clear mentorship where they had been grooming Johnson to take over.

So in the other 37 cases, the teams were right back at square 1 after the season and now their players were going to at least their 3rd coach in less than a year.

We may need to get red of Westphal, but unless the situation turns poisonous or Petrie really believe Ellie could be the next great coach, I’d rather wait till the offseason to make a move.

To Natt, Or Not To Natt?

Never. If you combine this with Will Solomon, I might kill myself on principle.

I wondered how teams that changed coaches mid-season would compare to teams that did not over the course of a full season. Posted here.

Half the time you change it gets better, and half the time you do nothing it gets better.

Forget about the statistics, If the players want him gone, he’s gone.

The Kings @ 4-14 are the worst team in the NBA. The Clippers are better with Blake Griffin, even though they have 3 more losses. The talent should indicate that this team is better than 1 win, 13 losses in their last 14 games, but perhaps not? Assuming we do not improve upon last years woeful season, I think Westphal needs to go. Yes the team is still playing hard, but our record s/b better with than just 4 wins all year if you consider the talent on this roster. That said, it is clear to me that w/out a new arena (and that is doubtful) the Kings will move to another city to get a newer arena with more luxury boxes and a larger fan base to build upon. I certainly don’t blame any fan for not supporting this product (I don’t) but I can see no logical reason why or how the Maloof’s will stay in Cowtown.