Importance of Stability

As mentioned before I have wanted to move the writing in this blog in a different direction so here it goes. Instead of just recapping what you already know for the most part this blog will now feature my thoughts about certain issues in sports. Lastly the writing in this blog won’t be weekly, more than likely I will have a new blog post up every week and a half to two weeks.

The topic that I’m going to tackle in this blog post is the importance of stability in sports with an emphasis on the Portland Trail Blazers. The importance of stability seems and is obvious but for some reason the world of sports for the most part is as unstable as ever these days. The Blazers and owner Paul Allen provided a great example of this last week when they abruptly fired general manager Rich Cho even though he had been on the job for less than a year. To make matters worse on the Blazers end if a replacement GM is found before this years NBA draft the Blazers will have had three general managers in the past year. Yes it is fair to start making Paul Allen and Al Davis comparisons, you know what they say never a better time to be a Blazer fan then now.

I think that its pretty obvious that having a stable franchise and or university from the top down correlates well with winning. This is for many reasons as if you are able to keep your owner, GM, coach, and players together for an extended period of time they will obviously understand each other and generally speaking play better together. This isn’t a fast process either it is my belief that every new coach and or general manager should be given at least three season before judgment can be passed. How can you ever evaluate anyone if there using previous managements players and not their own philosophy and players? Seems to be common sense but for whatever reason it is widely disregarded by owners and or university presidents who are desperate for wins.

Obviously every circumstance is different and sometimes changes have to be made after a short period of time for whatever reason, whether it is off the field issues or something of that nature. If the general manager/coach/player doesn’t have a serious off the field issue than you have to give them some time to adjust to the situation and give them a chance to respond if they struggle in the early going. That’s why the Blazers firing of Rich Cho was so shocking and strange as a Blazer fan. Cho had less than a year to mold the team to his liking but his career as Blazer GM is already over, there’s no way to call this a fair deal. I wasn’t the biggest fan of Cho, probably because I felt that previous GM Kevin Pritchard could do no wrong (which eventually was proven wrong by the player known as Luke Babbitt but that’s besides the point), but I didn’t dislike him and felt that he deserved a chance to show his ability for a couple years.

In sports every general manager and coach has a different idea or philosophy for how things should be done, much like how every player plays the game differently from other players. Cho getting only one year with Kevin Pritchard’s players is in no way a fair shake and will undoubtedly set the Blazers back going forward. It is incredibly tough to be competitive when you are transitioning coaches and general managers because as mentioned above every general manager and coach has his own idea of what is the best way to win in their respective leagues. When you go from one year of one thing (for instance the Suns high tempo offense under Mike D’Antoni and then the next year to something different, slow paced defensive oriented team under Terry Porter, the results are usually a below average product. This usually causes instant panic because the winning results aren’t there but you have to give every new addition time, basically stability is preaching patience. That example is slightly flawed because Porter was fired mid-season of his first year and the Suns responded by playing much better with Alvin Gentry as their head man but they were ultimately set back because they added players like Shaq for Porter, once Gentry became head coach Shaq became a poor fit. Also when you take into account that the Suns received Shaq, a poor fit in an up tempo attack, at the cost of Shawn Marion, an excellent fit in an up tempo attack, its tough to argue that the lack of stability in Suns head coaches wasn’t harmful.

Besides the Sun’s there are plenty of other examples like Rich Rodriguez in his first years at Michigan as football coach. Rodriguez a spread offense coach took over the prestigious job as Michigan coach from former coach Lloyd Car who was a tradition I-Form offensive coach. For those that don’t follow college football Rodriguez’s first two years at Michigan were an absolute failure, as his teams didn’t have the explosive athletes necessary for a spread offense to succeed. This past year, Rodriguez’s third year, Michigan returned to the bowl season and ended the season with an final record of 7 wins and 6 losses. The product on the field was much better and Rodriguez’s offensive genius was on full display as Michigan had one of the most potent offensives in the country. Michigan ended up firing Rodriguez after the season, which is an interesting move because it seemed like Rodriguez had the program on the upswing but they at least gave him the three years that I feel like every coach and or general manager deserves. Personally I would have kept Rodriguez for one more year because he finally had a program complete with a majority of players that he had recruited and deemed fit for his football philosophy. Michigan obviously didn’t view the situation the same way as me and replaced Rodriguez with former San Diego State coach Brady Hoke. Hoke by all accounts is a fine coach but there is no doubt in my mind that Michigan for next year or two will struggle to put up as good a season as they had this past year. I say this because Rodriguez has filled Michigan with players that fit his philosophy (spread offensive) while Hoke comes in as a traditional offensive mind. As you can see doesn’t seem like an ideal fit, if Michigan thought that Hoke gives them a better chance of competing for BCS bowls in the future than Rodriguez did than this is a fair move but this move seems too much like it was caused by short term goals.

It would be just ignorant to talk about the importance of stability and ignore the Oakland Raiders and their crazed owner Al Davis. Since Jon Gruden departed as Raider head coach in 2003 the Raiders have had five coaches that have led the Raiders to 48 wins and 96 losses. That’s simply not getting it done and in my opinion much of this can be attributed to the difficult transition that occurs when your changing coaches. On the opposite end of the spectrum teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Yankees, Atlanta Braves, and Boston Red Sox are perfect examples of the importance of stability. The Steelers might be the best example of this as they are one of most successful programs in NFL history. Since 1969 the Steelers have had a total of three coaches, their record in that time: 385 wins and 259 losses as well as six Super Bowl victories. Similar to the Steelers are the Atlanta Braves who set a record with 14 straight years of making the playoffs under the guidance of manager Bobby Cox. The New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox both enjoy a monetary advantage over teams in the MLB but both also show the positive affects of having stable management. The Yankees under Joe Torre’s reign as manager won 5 titles in 12 years while the Red Sox have returned to prominence, 2 World Series’, under the guidance of manager Terry Francona during his six years as Red Sox manager. In basketball you have the San Antonio Spurs and Greg Popovich who have won four NBA Finals’ during his 15-year tenure. There are plenty of other examples in all major sports but the main point remains the same stability is undoubtedly a positive for major league teams.

So where does this leave the Blazers is the main thing that I wanted to address after providing a little background and to be honest I’m not sure what the answer is. They still have talented players and an above average coach in Nate McMillan but who knows what the next general manager will envision for this team. Another problem with a lack of stability is that it tends to scare off potential players and or recruits because who really wants to play for a team that is incredibly unpredictable? Or more specifically in the Blazers case what general manager wants to become the Blazers general manager when the team has gone through two in less than a year? It’s not even like Cho did anything wrong compared to Pritchard as the Blazers made the postseason and fell in the first round, which was the exact same as the Blazers in the last two years of Pritchard’s general manager tenure. Obviously it is a good sign that the Blazers have retained McMillan who can provide some stability but with the constant shuffle of general managers he has to go through new personal and philosophies from each new general manager. Preferably I’d like to see the Blazers become stable like the aforementioned teams above but that doesn’t seem likely which doesn’t exactly suggest title contention in the future but I’d love to be wrong.

My main point in this, which was spurred by the Blazers strange decision to let Rich Cho go, was that owners and university presidents and athletic directors need to give coaches and general managers time to prove themselves instead of constantly changing them. As mentioned above this isn’t exactly anything ground breaking by me but I feel like the majority of owners and or athletic directors look past this due to short-term failures. There are going to be times where it is perfectly understandable to fire a coach or general manager due to complete inadequacy and or off the field problems but for the most part I strongly believe that coaches and or general managers should be given at least a couple of years to prove themselves. Constantly shuffling coaches and or general managers causes more problems than it does to help, owners and university athletic directors need to stick with their decisions even if the short-term results are underwhelming. Bill Belicheck went 5-11 in his first year as New England Patriots coach, which followed a 5-11 season as the coach of the Cleveland Browns, after the season many questioned whether Belicheck would ever be successful as an NFL coach. The Patriots stuck with him and won three out of the next four Super Bowls, not every situation is like this but as is shown by many of the past championship winners stable management is often a key component. My whole point is that it would be wise for owners and or university athletic directors to preach patience instead of constantly looking to make changes. Making these changes sets teams back as they have to adjust to a new coach and his way of playing the game. Likewise trading general managers brings on a difficult transition because they often have to change the teams personal to their liking. The successful teams throughout history have for the most part gone by the saying that patience is a virtue and for their patience they get to reap the benefits.