Historical Perspective: Will the Kings be Better off without Adelman?

R

Roch Royals Fan

G-League
Now that several days have passed since Rick Adelman’s dismissal, I thought it might be wise to reflect on whether history shows if this move will work to the Kings’ benefit.

I can honestly say that I can’t think of ANY coach in any major sport (NBA/NFL/MLB) who was fired/not renewed after eight consecutive playoff seasons. In addition, it is rare when any coach is fired after a successful run. Nevertheless, I did come up with some examples where a successful coach was let go because he was unable to match an owner’s expectations.

This is certainly not a completely finished list, and I’m sure there are other examples. I’d invite comment regarding other coaches to whom this has happened.

Perhaps the most famous example of this is the Red Sox firing Grady Little after the 2003 season, in which the Red Sox lost to the Yankees in seven games. His firing came after his imfamous decision to leave Pedro Martinez in the game in the 8th inning of Game 7. I thought Grady got a raw deal when he was fired for Terry Francona, but we all know what the Red Sox did in 2004. A SUCCESSFUL CHANGE

The Yankees made a similar decision when they let Buck Showalter go after he led them to a Wild Card berth in 1995. The Yanks brought in Joe Torre, and the rest is also well-documented. Ironically enough, Buck was also let go by the year before the Arizona Diamonbacks beat the Yankees in 2001. Buck was a successful manager in Arizona prior to his dismissal. TWO SUCCESSFUL CHANGES

The NFL

The first example I thought of was the firing of Bum Phillips by the Houston Oilers in 1980 after three consecutive playoff seasons. The following year, the Oilers finished 7-9, and the organization waited until 2000 to play in the Super Bowl, where the relocated Tennessee Titans lost to the St. Louis Rams. A FAILED CHANGE

More recently, Al Davis of the Oakland Raiders allowed Jon Gruden to become coach of Tampa Bay. Ironically, Tampa Bay and Oakland met in the Super Bowl that year. TWO SUCCESSFUL CHANGES

A by-product of those moves were that Tony Dungee ended up in Indianapolis, where he replaced Jim Mora, who was unable to win a playoff game with the Colts. Although the Colts have not played for a Super Bowl title, they are certainly more successful after Tony’s arrival. A SUCCESSFUL CHANGE

In 2002, the 49ers fired Steve Mariucci after a 10 win season. We all know how the 49er organization fell apart after that. A FAILED CHANGE

The NBA

Pat Riley for Paul Westhead

The Lakers won the NBA championship under Paul Westhead in 1981. However, he was fired two years later shortly into the 1982/83 season and replaced by Pat Riley. We all know what happened after that. A SUCCESSFUL CHANGE

Bill Fitch to KC Jones

Bill Fitch was fired as the coach of the Boston Celtics after the 1982/83 season despite winning 56 games. KC Jones replaced him, and won the NBA Championship in the 1983/84 season. A SUCCESSFUL CHANGE

Rick Adelman to PJ Carlesimo

Rick was fired after the 1993/94 season. PJ followed up with three first round playoff exits, and was fired after the 1996/97 season. A FAILED CHANGE

Rick Carlisle for Larry Brown

Under Carlisle, the Pistons posted consecutive 50-win seasons and advanced to the 2003 Eastern Conference Finals for the first time since 1991, where they were swept in four games by the New Jersey Nets. Surprisingly, after such a successful season, coach Rick Carlisle was fired that offseason. He was replaced by Larry Brown, who won a Championship and played in another NBA Finals. A SUCCESSFUL CHANGE

Byron Scott for Lawrence Frank

Despite consecutive NBA Finals appearances, Byron Scott was fired mid-season of the following year with a 22-20 record. Lawrence Frank finished the season with a 25-15 mark, but the Nets haven’t been back to the NBA Finals since. However, I'd say this is a neutral change, since the Nets have overhauled their roster a great deal since Lawrence Frank took over, so it's not fair make a comparison.

My very informal results show the following: Of thirteen coaching changes, 9 were successful. Only 3 were failures, and one was neutral.

This suggests that we Kings fans have NOTHING to fear from a coaching change. However, I'm sure that I've left some changes off of my informal list. What do you think?
 
I would say that you have prepared an interesting assessment of the situation. I would submit that improvements or failures in most of these coaching switches had more to do with player acquisitions. In Adelman's case, the Maloofs ripped the Kings apart with trades and giveaways to save money during the last two yeasr of Adelman's tenure. The fact is that Adelman manged his patchwork team into the playoffs despite the player disruptions. Adelman's player-friendly style got the most out of some very dubious players (Artest, Thomas, and Wells). Adelman had chicken soup out of you-know-what. Had the Maloofs resigned Adelman for next season, the squad of existing players would probably gone further into the playoffs, even with no refinements of the line-up. Now, all bets are off. The chemistry, the team dynamic, has been irrevocably altered. All bets are off.

You don't fire arguably the best coach in the League when your team is starting to play consistent, very good, basketball. Assuming the Kings even stay in Sacramento, I just hope the Maloofs stop making important team decisions at those comfortable family seances.

I think the Maloofs will be in for an unfortunate surprise if and when they move the Kings to Anaheim. The greater Los Angeles area has a boatload of established professional sports teams? I am not a big sports nut, so I can't name very many: Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings (hockey), Mighty Ducks, and God knows how many soccer teams and ancillary professional sports franchises. Then there is auto racing, proferssional wrestlings, and the ponies.

Look at the Southern California demographics. The Maloofs might be better served to sponsor a big-time soccer team in Anaheim than another basketball team. I would be shocked to see the Kings sell-out in Orange County. It is indeed Laker Country for basketball fans, and will always be Laker Country.

Las Vegas, I don't know. Talk about glizt and plastic BS.
 
quick dog said:
I would say that you have prepared an interesting assessment of the situation. I would submit that improvements or failures in most of these coaching switches had more to do with player acquisitions. In Adelman's case, the Maloofs ripped the Kings apart with trades and giveaways to save money during the last two yeasr of Adelman's tenure. The fact is that Adelman manged his patchwork team into the playoffs despite the player disruptions. Adelman's player-friendly style got the most out of some very dubious players (Artest, Thomas, and Wells). Adelman had chicken soup out of you-know-what. Had the Maloofs resigned Adelman for next season, the squad of existing players would probably gone further into the playoffs, even with no refinements of the line-up. Now, all bets are off. The chemistry, the team dynamic, has been irrevocably altered. All bets are off.

You don't fire arguably the best coach in the League when your team is starting to play consistent, very good, basketball. Assuming the Kings even stay in Sacramento, I just hope the Maloofs stop making important team decisions at those comfortable family seances.

I think the Maloofs will be in for an unfortunate surprise if and when they move the Kings to Anaheim. The greater Los Angeles area has a boatload of established professional sports teams? I am not a big sports nut, so I can't name very many: Dodgers, Angels, Lakers, Clippers, Kings (hockey), Mighty Ducks, and God knows how many soccer teams and ancillary professional sports franchises. Then there is auto racing, proferssional wrestlings, and the ponies.

Look at the Southern California demographics. The Maloofs might be better served to sponsor a big-time soccer team in Anaheim than another basketball team. I would be shocked to see the Kings sell-out in Orange County. It is indeed Laker Country for basketball fans, and will always be Laker Country.

Las Vegas, I don't know. Talk about glizt and plastic BS.
Click to expand...

One of the brothers re-assured on Kizomor's show once again on Friday that moving the team is the last thing they do. They realize what they have here and are actively working with city officials again to get this done. We all know they brough that former assemblyman in to spear head the project etc. They do not want to move. And, any moves they are making are not preparing for a move. Kozimor asked him those things point blank.
 
Well i think the intial flaw in this argument is saying that adleman has 8 successful seasons. HE didnt. If you want to call 2002 successful fine. but every other one was a faliure. I dont see banners in ARCO. ok so his first years, when we were not favorites, were succesful because noone expected anything of us. But if you become elite and never win. its a FALIURE! not a success. Adleman never won anything but a few playoff games.

Lets ask ourselfs why some people are crying over the loss of Rick. Are some people sad to see him go because he has become a figure head of our team? So its just "sad" to see him go? Or what. The only reason I would want to keep him is because Ron wanted him back. But brining in a coach who isnt a push over with his players is what we need. The maloofs need to be praised for thier attempt to bring in defense. They have a championship on thier mind. SO let thank them, for trying to do what is needed to win.

Are you happy with a "fun team to watch" or do u want to win it all... Honestly I think some people just want to have a "good time" when watching the kings... I want a ring for my team.
 
Because it was clearly Adelman's fault we missed 14 FT's in game 7, and Peja Stojakovic's 3, that Webber's knee blew out, and that Webber's 3 rimmed out.

The thing is, Adelman WAS successful here. It's scary how close we were to a three-peat, and scarier still how well we did with all the turmoil.

Frankly aside from freak accidents and player mistakes I don't think we could have done better coaching-wise.
 
Our players choked in 2002. no question. But wat has Rick done in his career when he didnt have talent? This yr, before ron, we sucked horribly. He didn't look like some great coach this yr. Ron saved this season. Not Rick
 
^^That argument is just so full of major flaws.

Do you think EVERY coach who doesn't win a title is a failure? Then, look around because there are a lot of failures currently coaching in the NBA.

:rolleyes:

You can argue that the team needed a change without having to resort to trying to demean exactly what Rick Adelman was able to accomplish.

Give the man his due. He did a pretty damned good job. Now, he's gone. I'm going to be watching very closely to see how fast you are to make excuses for the new coach if he cannot equal or better Adelman's record.

I have watched this team since day 1 in Sacramento. All I know that the most exciting basketball played on the court of Arco (old and new) were under the guidance of Rick Adelman. For people to continue to act as though that was nothing is just silly.
 
Last edited:
The seasons we didnt win it all when we were chosen to was a faliure. His over all job was not a faliure, just an underachiving effort. I could be wrong about disliking Rick, we shall see
 
SacKings4Life21 said:
Well i think the intial flaw in this argument is saying that adleman has 8 successful seasons. HE didnt. If you want to call 2002 successful fine. but every other one was a faliure. I dont see banners in ARCO. ok so his first years, when we were not favorites, were succesful because noone expected anything of us. But if you become elite and never win. its a FALIURE! not a success. Adleman never won anything but a few playoff games.

Lets ask ourselfs why some people are crying over the loss of Rick. Are some people sad to see him go because he has become a figure head of our team? So its just "sad" to see him go? Or what. The only reason I would want to keep him is because Ron wanted him back. But brining in a coach who isnt a push over with his players is what we need. The maloofs need to be praised for thier attempt to bring in defense. They have a championship on thier mind. SO let thank them, for trying to do what is needed to win.

Are you happy with a "fun team to watch" or do u want to win it all... Honestly I think some people just want to have a "good time" when watching the kings... I want a ring for my team.
Click to expand...
Your measurment for success is unrealistic. By your standards the ONLY successfull coaches are coaches who have won championships. If we accept that then there are what like 4 or 5 guys currently coaching who are any good at all, all of whom are under contract with the possible exception of Brown. More to the point it reduces every season to one winner and 29 loosers... might sell a lot of ad space to Nike and Gatoraide that way but it's not very realisitic. To say the Clippers had a bad season beceause they do not win the championship this year is just wrong. I would also say that givne the the roster RA had to work with and the match up they had in round one the Kings DID had a successfull season.

What makes this idea that rings are the only measure of success is that it compleetly exonerates a guy like Lary Brown who boasts a life time W/L of 1010/800 while condeming a guy like Jerry Sloan 984/658 and I am sorry but I refuse to belive that Brown is a winer while Sloan a looser. BTW these tow "legends BOTH have trouble stacking up against the looser with a 752/481 record.
 
A coach is, at most, 10% of why a team wins the championship. It's an important 10% because every percent counts when two top teams are playing, but it isn't the ultimate decider.

In a 1 pt game like the Mavs-SA one yesterday it's a coin flip, a random function of the refs and the ball. The coaches kept both teams in the game, but they weren't the deciding factor.
 
bibbinator said:
A coach is, at most, 10% of why a team wins the championship. It's an important 10% because every percent counts when two top teams are playing, but it isn't the ultimate decider.

In a 1 pt game like the Mavs-SA one yesterday it's a coin flip, a random function of the refs and the ball. The coaches kept both teams in the game, but they weren't the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

Your assessment makes sense to me.
 
bibbinator said:
A coach is, at most, 10% of why a team wins the championship. It's an important 10% because every percent counts when two top teams are playing, but it isn't the ultimate decider.

In a 1 pt game like the Mavs-SA one yesterday it's a coin flip, a random function of the refs and the ball. The coaches kept both teams in the game, but they weren't the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

I would even give more than 10%... but agreed.

Rick has some success on certain levels. But when you look at the ultimate goal, he was not successful. Jerry sloan did the same. He had alot of success on many levels, but when he retires he will look at his career as being not complete. You think Barkley is just fine with never winning? how about clyde?? no they regret it. Your right there are only a hand full of compltly successful coaches in the league. and then another handful of mildly successful ones. Adelman has had a mildly successfull career. Better than alot... but many steps behind the best of the best. We needed change, I dont think he was the best for us any more. But I will comepletly change my mind if Ron is furious with the new coach, ron was the X factor. I have never liked Rick but if Ron did, and he doenst play his best for the new guy i will be mad
 
SacKings4Life21 said:
Well i think the intial flaw in this argument is saying that adleman has 8 successful seasons. HE didnt. If you want to call 2002 successful fine. but every other one was a faliure. I dont see banners in ARCO. ok so his first years, when we were not favorites, were succesful because noone expected anything of us. But if you become elite and never win. its a FALIURE! not a success. Adleman never won anything but a few playoff games.
Click to expand...


How primitive.

Rick Adelman NEVER lost a playoff series we were favored to win. Not one. The only time it was even close was the Mavs series of '03, but of course the odds swung massively around once Webber went down. Injuries in fact scuttled each of our best runs. Something beyond the coach's control (and no, the guys who went down most often were not particularly overworked by NBA standards).

We were one of three teams to make the playoffs each of those 8 years. THREE. Rick was one of TWO coaches to be there every year.

A moribund franchise that nobody cared about and was on the verge of moving, was reborn, and became one of THE "name" franchises in the NBA.

The total number of coaches in the NBA who could be said to be MORE successful during Rick's tenure here would be 2, or possibly 3. PJ, Pop and maybe Brown, who mixed in some bad years, this years embarrassment, with three trips to the Finals. That's it.

Calling our run here anything but a success just shows a complete lack of perspective not only about the Kings history, but about the rest of the league as well. 25 of the 30 teams would KILL to have had what we had. Maybe a few more. Good times, and knocking on the door year after year.
 
Here's a recent example from MLB, not that I'm necessarily buying into it having anything to do with our team but there are some fun parallels:
Red Sox - Grady Little - fired after losing to their dreaded division rival, criticized for lack of faith in his bench(bullpen) and wearing out his starters eventually leading to Pedro Martinez's game 7 breakdown. Replaced by Terry Francona who promptly leads them to their first championship in 86 years.
 
^^I don't follow baseball, so forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but how many times did Grady Little lead the Red Sox to the playoffs before being dismissed?
 
Interesting and may I add a nice angle to look at things.

I will add one:
Jimmy Johnson with the Cowboys. Short term they still won a super bowl, Long term players left/retired and that was beyond the coaches fault. I call this one a WASH.

I also don't agree with the thought that RA wasn't a success. He was a huge success and part of the puzzle on why we were in the playoffs for 8 years.
 
For accuracy, I really think the only possible comparisons should be in the NBA. You don't compare a QB's rating to a shooter's FG% to determine which is the better athlete. I don't think you can really compare coaching in the different sports.
 
If we go by one thing, let's just remember that firing Rick and replacing him with PJ Carlesimo has failed. Twice. Let's not go for 3.
 
VF21 said:
^^I don't follow baseball, so forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but how many times did Grady Little lead the Red Sox to the playoffs before being dismissed?
Click to expand...
I actually had to think about this because I only follow baseball when the Sox or Giants are having good years but he actually only got two seasons and only made it once but that part is a little different since baseball sends so few teams to the playoffs. The other part where the similarity ends would be what happened would have been most equivalent to firing Rick after the Lakers game 7 and then us winning it all in 2003. Oddly enough after winning the series in 2004 the Sox have undergone major personel changes in the past 2 years with several of their most visible players being traded or allowed to depart by free agency including Johnny Damon's defection to the Yankees this past season.

Like I said these parallels only go so far but I thought this was a fun one since the team ditched a manager in an otherwise promising position and the move paid off.
 
The thing is, if Rick was coming back, and we made just one or two tweaks (say something like adding a Francisco Elson, Etan Thomas, or other middling big man to the roster), we'd be expected to finish top four in the West and win at least one playoff series, and entertain legitimate hopes of making it to the Conference Finals.

Difficult to improve on indeed, but now replace that #4 all-time winningest coach-- who, by the way, gets along great with your two best players who have a history of not getting along with other coaches-- with a big question mark. Can that be considered an improvement?
~~
 
captain bill said:
If we go by one thing, let's just remember that firing Rick and replacing him with PJ Carlesimo has failed. Twice. Let's not go for 3.
Click to expand...
captain bill wins the thread.
 
VF21 said:
^^I don't follow baseball, so forgive me if this sounds ignorant, but how many times did Grady Little lead the Red Sox to the playoffs before being dismissed?
Click to expand...

the red sox have been a good team for many seasons.

Maybe using the word faliure is strong. We did have success. Rick coached a very talented team that was picked to win it. But Over all our glory years team underachived because we were picked to win it and didnt. How much of that is Ricks fault? someone tell me.

Because if we take the route that it was merely the players choking and not followimg Ricks plan, than why can we assume that it was the players and not the coach who had the impact and brought the glory. meaning Ricks impact wasnt the deciding factor

If we go the route that Rick failed the team by not coaching well in the big games, then we can put blame on him for not taking us to the very end of the line. Either way we underachived our successful run.

Honestly, I think people put way more importance on the coach's role in winning the ring anyway. dont get me wrong, of course you have to have a good coach to win a title. But ultimatly the players win. My point could very well be proven this yr if Det wins it. THey won with "the great larry brown" and they could win with an "adelman like" coach this year in flip. what i mean by that is He had some success with Minny, but never got it all done. Now he inherited the best team in the league. We shall see.

Ultimatly I want the kings to win a title. Success is great. But if the kings go to the playoffs every year for the rest of my life and break every record in the game but still dont win a title in the midst of all the mind blowing success.. I will look back on that obvious success and brand it all with a fat label: underachievement and dissappointment
 
We were "picked to win it" ONCE. EVER. Kings fans often seem to forget that and seem to drift over into some fantasy past that did not exist. In 2002 we were supposed to be SWEPT by the 2x defending Lakers (in fact some did not think we'd get by the Mavs). Instead we rose up, sans our #2 player, and produced one of the best series in NBA history.

2003 was the ONLY year we were picked to win it, and we suffered injury after injury the entire year, and were finished off by the devastating knee injured suffered by Webb. Adn that right there is your story. No mystery. No failure. In 2001 it was our first year, nobody ever wins those. In 2002 we served notice and came out of nowhere respectwise to shwo we were as good as the dynastic team we were facing off wiht. And then 2003 was set up to be our year...until an injury, THE injury, felled us. And that as they say was that. And its nobody's fault except for God's, fate's, the Great Pumpkin's, whatever you want to call it.
 
VF21, I agree with you sentiment on coaching in the sense that you can't compare coaches between sports. For example, you can't say that Phil Jackson is a better coach than Bill Walsh.

However, I think that it has been demonstrated that coaching is important to the overall success level of a professional sports franchise, regardless of sport. Therefore, I think that it is relevant to look at what happened in different sports when a successful coach is fired. After all, there are not many examples of successful coaches being fired in any sport, let alone the NBA.

Limiting it to NBA coaches does give the Kings a good precedent: Larry Brown, KC Jones, and Pat Riley. Even the failure I cited, PJ Carlesimo, is probably due more to talent deterioration than coaching.

I began my search thinking that it was a bad idea for the Kings for fire Rick, and that other franchises who fired successful coaches would have been worse off for doing so. To my pleasant surprise, it turns out not to be the case.

I may have started this thread too early. I didn't want it to become a "Did Rick deserve to get fired thread?" Rather, since Rick had already been let go, I thought it would be interesting to discuss whether the Maloof's strategy would 'pay off', and if the Kings were more likely to be better or worse off.
 
Last edited:
I see what you're saying Roch Royals, but you can't look at each of your cases and say it was JUST a coaching change that made the difference. I have followed sports most of my life. Baseball (until recently), football, and - of course - basketball. I know the old adage is an old adage because it gets said so often: players win, coaches lose.

We don't KNOW if the team that "succeeded" with a new coach would necessarily have done the same with the old coach.

Will the Kings be "better off" without Adelman? That is actually wholly dependent on how you define "better off". We will never know what Adelman might have done in 2006-2007. We'll have some new faces, we'll have a full pre-season of Ron and whomever is left from this year's team.

I honestly think it's trying to find reason out of chaos. We simply don't know what will happen and we'll never know what would have happened. So, for me at least, I'm more interested in looking forward and not looking back because "what if" never works.

;)
 
I will look back on that obvious success and brand it all with a fat label: underachievement and dissappointment.
Click to expand...

That's your choice. Sorry, but I love this sport and my team way too much to label them in that manner. Only ONE team a year can win it all. If all you are willing to accept is a championship, you're going to be in for a lifetime of disappointment. And that, too, is your choice.

My thought is that I have seen this team at the very bottom of the barrel. In fact, at times I think we were under the barrel. I don't think we've ever had, with the exception of the 2003 team, a team that truly SHOULD have been able to get the job done. With the warts, wrinkles, etc. our team has had, what they've accomplished has been amazing. If anything, they've overachieved.
 
Last edited:
SacKings4Life21 said:
Ultimatly I want the kings to win a title. Success is great. But if the kings go to the playoffs every year for the rest of my life and break every record in the game but still dont win a title in the midst of all the mind blowing success.. I will look back on that obvious success and brand it all with a fat label: underachievement and dissappointment
Click to expand...

Wow! That seems just a tad harsh. I agree that winning a championship is the ultimate goal, but I don't think that not reaching that goal is the same thing as failure.

Do you think every Olympic athlete who doesn't bring home a gold medal has failed, and should label their experience as "underachievement and disappointment"?

To me, sports isn't just about the championship, or the medal. Yes, that's the ultimate goal, but the competing, the playing your heart out, the giving your best effort is all you can do. This team, our team, has always done that. Yes, so far, no championship. We've stumbled, we've struggled, we've missed big free throws, and we've been hindered by ill timed injuries. But we've competed. We've given it our all, and it's been one heck of a ride.

As disappointed, and in some years, completely heartbroken I have been over our exit from the playoffs over the past 8 years, I have always been proud of this team.
 
I am proud to. But i dont think anyone would say that they would be perfectly fine if the kings never won a championship but had alot of success. Noone would say that they are just peechy with no ring. We will enjoy thesuccess (i guess) but noone is perfectly happy that we have never won it all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top