Why the Lakers can't expect much from Byron Scott in the short term
It took three months for the Lakers to find a head coach after parting ways with Mike D’Antoni, but the NBA’s ultimate glamour franchise came out of that long search with another common carousel coach - a guy who’s been around the block with varying degrees of success and failure.
Byron Scott likely comes with the endorsement of Kobe Bryant. He’s a former Laker himself, and he has had some success as a coach in New Jersey and New Orleans. Prior to his disappointing three-year stop in Cleveland, Scott had built a reputation as a guy who came into losing situations and improved teams over time from the defensive end out.
In New Jersey, Scott inherited a Nets team that won 26 games in his first season in charge and ranked 24th in defensive efficiency. Over the next two-and-a-half seasons with Scott in charge, the Nets went 123-83, made back-to-back Finals appearances and ranked second, first, and fourth in defensive efficiency.
In New Orleans, Scott inherited a Hornets team that went 18-64 with a 23rd-ranked defensive efficiency during his first season in charge. Over the next four seasons with Scott at the helm, the Hornets won 38-to-56 games each season, finished 20th, 16th, 7th and 9th in defensive efficiency, made two postseason appearances, and even won a playoff series.
With a terrible, post-LeBron Cavaliers roster under his command, however, Scott oversaw an atrocious defensive team that barely improved in any facet of the game over three years.
Was it an indication that no mortal basketball coach could have gotten any more out of those Cavs teams, or perhaps an indication that Scott’s success with the Nets and Hornets had more to do with the arrival of Jason Kidd and the emergence of Chris Paul?
The answer is likely a little from column A, and a little from column B.
If there are only a handful of NBA coaches who can make a positive, tangible difference in the win/loss column and another handful who can make a negative difference, the vast majority are average coaches somewhere in the middle - completely made or sunk by the talent at their disposal.
Scott likely falls in that middle range, which is fine for a rebuilding franchise. If he lasts long enough to still be around when the Lakers are good enough to compete again, he’ll get his due praise.
But the Lakers are nowhere near that point right now, and if L.A. fans, management, or Bryant - some of whom don’t consider this a rebuilding franchise - are expecting a seemingly average NBA coach to turn water into wine with this roster, they’re in for a world of disappointment.
After being a virtual non-factor in the superstar free agent sweepstakes this summer (they finished a distant third to New York and Chicago for Carmelo Anthony’s services), the Lakers responded by overpaying Jordan Hill, overcommitting to Nick Young, acquiring Carlos Boozer, and bringing back Xavier Henry, Ryan Kelly, and Wesley Johnson.
L.A. did well to snag a first round pick from Houston by taking on Jeremy Lin’s pricey expiring contract, they got great value in Ed Davis on a two-year, $2 million deal, drafting Julius Randle was a nice step in the right direction, and the team hopes to get something meaningful out of a healthy Bryant and maybe even an aging Steve Nash. But in addition to the aforementioned list of underwhelming moves, the team also lost Pau Gasol, Jodie Meeks, Steve Blake, Kendall Marshall, Chris Kaman and Jordan Farmar.
Remember, too, that their own first round pick next year is only top-five protected from being shipped to Phoenix, before that protection diminishes to top-three in 2016 and 2017 (It will be unprotected in 2018 in the event it hasn’t been forfeited yet). That’s a big chip to lose for a bad team in need of young talent and assets.
Add it all up, and a 55-loss team operating in an unforgiving Western Conference, where it takes nearly 50 wins just to squeak into the playoffs, probably managed to get worse this summer. And there are few avenues for immediate improvement (by way of trade assets) in their possession.
The Lakers have managed to pull off franchise-changing coups before and they do have the cap space to land a true superstar within the next year or two. But that’s still easier said than done, and banking on free agency alone is a dangerous recipe (just ask the Knicks).
Without landing at least one of those future-altering free agents, the Lakers are in for a long, painful rebuild. There’s no shame in being in that position every now and then, as for the majority of pro sports franchises, it’s merely a necessary part of the business.
The Lakers, of course, are not your typical pro sports franchise. That begs the question of whether or not they’ve come to terms with the reality of their current situation, and if Scott will be given a real, long-term opportunity to steer this ship through what should be some pretty lean years.