# Does Byron Scott deserve another season?



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Coming from tying the Lakers' franchise worst loss ever (a 48-point beatdown at the hands of the Utah Jazz), this season's Lakers will almost certainly be the worst team all-time, winning-wise, of the franchise.
The previous (shamefulll) record also was achieved with Byron Scott at the helm. 
Needless to say, Byron Scott has the worst winning percentage of any Lakers coach, ever.

Now, i do agree with some posters (most notably @jamel_Irief) that contuining a fire-the-coach-get-another-trying-to-make-it-work aproach isn't a surefire receipt to success. Continuity towards evolution is, theoretically, a good strategy.
And i would also agree that Scott inherited a team with little talent to begin with, and Kobe (well, not really Kobe Bryant, more like his corpse) being there would make it hard for the coach.
Finally, i'm almost certain that Scott was instructed to tank the seasons.

Still, i can't stop thinking Scott had one of the easiest jobs in the NBA. The Lakers were gonna suck; just ride Kobe into the sunset, develop the young players and try to be somewhat competitive.
Last season there was the Randle injury and Clarkson did progress nicely, so there's some extenuating circunstances.
But this season there was Clarkson AND Randle AND Russell. And the Lakers are even worse. And they should be MUCH better (not playoff-good, offf course).

Also of note: on the day of Scott's birthday, the (tied) worst loss of the franchise. Randle scored 2 points, Russell 5.

So what do you guys think? Should the Lakers start next season with Byron Scott at the helm?
If not, who do you think could be better suited?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

does he turn off FAs?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> does he turn off FAs?


The franchise (greatest basketball franchise ever in a big market) itself shouldn't turn off FAs. 

If FAs take who is coaching into consideration, maybe the Lakers aren't that appealing, i'd say. Off course, i don't quite remember a player ever stating "i signed with the Spurs because i wanted to play for Pop" (or whatever).

And wich FAs would you be thinking about?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

> i don't quite remember a player ever stating "i signed with the Spurs because i wanted to play for Pop" (or whatever).


just last year:



> The San Antonio Spurs signed coveted free agent LaMarcus Aldridge to a four-year deal on Saturday, and they were guaranteed Gregg Popovich will be around until at least 2019, too. In luring Aldridge to San Antonio, Popovich assured the big man that he would coach out the length of his contract, which expires in 2019, according to the San Antonio Express-News.


http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/7/...oach-2019-lamarcus-aldridge-san-antonio-spurs


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

also this: 



> The franchise (greatest basketball franchise ever in a big market) itself shouldn't turn off FAs.


wont mean much to most prospective FAs if that franchise isn't positioned to compete and part of any player's evaluation in that regard will have to do with the quality of the coach - in short is that a guy I want to play for?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> just last year:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/7/...oach-2019-lamarcus-aldridge-san-antonio-spurs


Not exactly the same thing but yeah, in the general direction.

But i guess Pop is, like, the exception, right (cause he is the best coach in activity and one of the Top-3,4 ever)? Has it ever happened with another coach? I mean, players coming out saying coach X being there was one of the reasons they decided to sign with team Z? (sincerely want to know, don't remember it being a major factor).


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

I'm not a fan of Byron Scott. I just don't think he's a good coach. I understand we don't have a great roster, but I just don't agree with some of the decisions he makes. We have a young team. They can afford to deal with a new coach and learn a new system. 

That being said, I have no idea who we would hire.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Thibs?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Our defense would certainly improve but I don't want him running our players into the ground (though I'm sure they can handle it given how young they are).


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

PauloCatarino said:


> The franchise (greatest basketball franchise ever in a big market) itself shouldn't turn off FAs.
> 
> If FAs take who is coaching into consideration, maybe the Lakers aren't that appealing, i'd say. Off course, i don't quite remember a player ever stating "i signed with the Spurs because i wanted to play for Pop" (or whatever).
> 
> And wich FAs would you be thinking about?


The franchise doesn't have the it factor anymore. Jeanie and company have a poor track record.


----------



## Offthecourt (Mar 30, 2016)

Why would he want to come back to the mess that the Lakers have become?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

off the top of my head? because he's under contract, is in no small part responsible for this mess and no one else is going to hire him?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

MojoPin said:


> The franchise doesn't have the it factor anymore. Jeanie and company have a poor track record.


I honestly think the franchise legacy can be a factor for FAs to consider as can the market itself but neither is as strong a factor as whether the team is ready to compete - I think the consideration is probably:

1) Can I win here?
2) $$$$$$$$$$$$?
3) Marketing $$$$$$$$$?*
3) Do I want to play for this coach?
.
.
.
.
4) LA is a pretty nice place to live, I kind of like it here**
5) Wow look at all those names in the rafters**

so in other words given other considerations the legacy/market stuff could play a factor but not nearly as significantly as they once may have and only given other more important qualifications

* http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2016/3/28/11320284/la-lakers-free-agency-rumors-demar-derozan
**assumes a certain kind of personality


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

If they get the 2 pick, and Ingram is left, I'd rather they trade it for Sabonis and another lottery player.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MojoPin said:


> The franchise doesn't have the it factor anymore. Jeanie and company have a poor track record.


Part of the poor track record involves firing the coach every year partly in response to the fan base.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Jamel Irief said:


> Part of the poor track record involves firing the coach every year partly in response to the fan base.


Yes, but that's an example of poor decision making on their end. If they make a move just to please the fans, then they shouldn't be in a position of executive authority. I don't think they fired Brown or Cantoni just for the sake of the fans, however.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

MojoPin said:


> Yes, but that's an example of poor decision making on their end. If they make a move just to please the fans, then they shouldn't be in a position of executive authority. I don't think they fired Brown or Cantoni just for the sake of the fans, however.


They didn't necessarily do it to for the fans, but the fans insisted that firing brown and Pringles was necessary for the health of the franchise. Letting them both go didn't really improve anything, and now those same fans want Byron gone.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

I'm not completely happy with Byron but he deserves another year. There's something to be said for continuity.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

King Sancho Fantastic said:


> I'm not completely happy with Byron but he deserves another year. There's something to be said for continuity.


I guess the question should be: is Byron Scott the right coach to develop a team from scratch (that is, a team who relies on the play of four (if we're lucky) youngsters in Russell, Clarkson, Randle and X (next Draft's Top-3 pick)?
I really don't know. From what i've reading, he is not. But what do i know?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

> Less than 24 hours after calling the play of his younger players "soft and passive," Los Angeles Lakers head coach Byron Scott admitted the way he's communicated with the team's young players has been an issue.
> 
> "With our young guys, could I have probably done a better job [communicating]? Probably so," Scott told Bill Oram of the O.C. Register before the Lakers hosted the Los Angeles Clippers on Thursday night. Scott has repeatedly called out his younger players for their lack of effort, or most often for "not being ready to play," following the Lakers' many losses so far this season.
> 
> ...



http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/...ngelo-russell-coaching-young-players-comments



> Scott also blamed the times we live in for the ineffectiveness of his communication with the Lakers' young core:
> 
> In 1980s, Scott said, "it was more coach said, ‘Do this,’ you’d do it." Now? "You tell them, ‘Do this,’ they say, ‘Why?’"


Jesus fucking Christ Byron, are you also not aware that they've changed some of the rules since the 1980s? are you also not aware that Robert fucking Sacre is making more than you made as a starter on a championship team? FUCK!!! DUDE!!!

are you really that stupid? Did you just spend the last two years acting like you could get away with that old Pat Riley shit that you guys eventually got tired of and pushed Pat out the door over even back then? Fuck you Byron


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

At least he put the cross-hairs on himself for ONCE.....IMO in an attempt to save his job. Reading between the lines he is saying to Jeanie and Mitch "BABY I'LL CHANGE! I WON'T DO IT AGAIN BABY! I LOOOOVE YOU BABY! JUST GIVE ME ONE MORE CHANCE BABY!!!"


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

e-monk said:


> http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/...ngelo-russell-coaching-young-players-comments
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It seems to be more and more clear that Byron Scott is way over his head as the coach of the Lakers. Dude just doesn't seem to have a grasp on reality. 
Remember this is a guy that scoffed at the notion of the three-pointer as being a fundamental option on offense and then watched the fucking Warr3ors win the championship.
His whole "players should man up" / "not enough effort" diatribe is just empty excuses for his lack of fundamental X and O's. 
The Lakers are #1 in the league in iso ball. WTF!!!!


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Byron Scott: "Millennials", shrugs


----------



## arasu (Jan 18, 2013)

Yes.

If Walton would be available for certain, I'd prefer bringing in him, a coach with fresh ideas from a currently winning system. But Scott is not a bad choice as a development guy. He has had a positive effect on those millennials, even if it's tough to see it through all of the losing.

Russell and Randle showed steady improvement throughout the season and showed a positive statistical response to Scott's coaching, exemplified by Russell's improvement after getting benched. While fans, players, and the media questioned and unfairly criticized the move to bench Russell and Randle, the results speak for themselves.

Here are Russell's per 36 minute stats, before getting benched, after getting benched, and after re-entering the starting lineup:

first 20 games-
15.8 points
4.0 assists
31.7% on 5.3 three-point attempts

middle 34 games (benched, started only twice)-
16.3 points
4.7 assists
35.0% on 6.4 three-point attempts

last 26 games-
18.0 points
3.9 assists
37.6% on 5.6 three-point attempts

Notice how his scoring and 3p% kept going up. We might call that a pattern of improvement.

Julius Randle not only averaged a double-double in his first 82 games in the NBA (pretty rare), but he also showed steady improvement by managing 21 of his 34 double-doubles during the last 41 games, including a triple-double.

Scott may appear to be not getting through enough to some, but clearly he _is_ getting through. Player improvement is what we should be looking at, and that improvement is measured in months and seasons, not in negative or positive headlines.


----------

