The Coaching Carousel Chugs Along

What's more amazing: the fact that the Los Angeles Lakers hired former Cleveland Cavaliers head coach Mike Brown to replace the legendary Phil Jackson on the bench, or the fact that some sports writers are actually praising the move?  I have absolutely nothing against Brown personally; by all accounts he's a great guy and an extremely likeable person, and he's certainly had his share of success at the NBA level.  But at this point, isn't it clear that he struggles when matched up against great coaches and players under the spotlight?  Don't the Lakers aspire to continue contending for NBA titles over the next four seasons (the length of Brown's contract) while Kobe Bryant is still around?  Assuming we take those two things as truth, how does this make sense for the Lakers?

The answer, of course, is that this is a safe move, and for some reason sports and conservativism go hand in hand.  It's the reason why NFL coaches are always punting on 4th-and-1, even though there is overwhelming statistical analysis that says they should go for it.  It's the reason why MLB managers stick with one closer (even a bad one) rather than play the matchups with their bullpens, despite the fact that the latter strategy makes a whole lot more sense.  And it's definitely the reason why teams keep hiring the same recently-fired coaches to fill their vacant positions.  Taking a chance on a new-but-enticing head coaching candidate is risky, and sports executives and coaches are unfairly punished for taking on risk.  Hiring a known quantity like Brown is safe and, even though it's highly unlikely to work out, Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak won't be punished for the mistake when it inevitably doesn't.

Sports are filled with unknowns, and that's what makes them so great.  We watch games precisely because we don't know what's going to happen next.  When it comes to hiring coaches, however, teams love to ride the coaching carousel and select the guys with the most proven track records.  However, guys with stellar resumes like Phil Jackson and Bobby Cox are rarely, if ever, available to be signed.  Instead, available head coaching candidates fall into two categories: unproven newcomers and mediocre veterans.  While the former have all of the upside, GMs mind-bogglingly prefer the latter.  Apparently the Lakers would rather lock in four straight flameouts in the second or third round of the playoffs (the Mike Brown special) than roll the dice on someone who could potentially do something special with a talented roster.

Enjoy four years of confusion, Laker fans.  Mike Brown is coming to Los Angeles. 

It's true that Brown has experience working with top-tier talent, and that may help him coach a Kobe Bryant-led team.  It's also true that Rick Carlisle, another guy dogged by the "can't win the big one" label, led his Dallas Mavericks club to the NBA Finals earlier tonight.  It's definitely possible that Mike Brown will be successful with L.A., but I'm willing to bet that history repeats itself and he fails to get the Lakers back into the NBA Finals.  Maybe one day GMs will get bold and start taking well-calculated risks on intriguing up-and-coming coaching candidates.  Until that day comes, though, we'll just have to listen to the metaphorical Wurlitzer Organ music annoyingly blaring from the coaching carousel.