Same question but in reverse: Was Pete extraordinarily good at his job that there is any reason to doubt the Kings had good reason to let him go? While things may have moved on from "this franchise is cursed" of the 80s and 90s I'd never heard it suggested that the Kings were revolutionizing sports medicine or PT, or that we had fewer than average injuries. He left before Bagley arrived, right? Is that supposed to be the big point in his favor? That his injury woes wouldn't have happened on his watch?