Given that local radio and TV analysts are often employed by the teams they cover and always spend plenty of time around them, it’s not surprising when they’re not willing to call for heads to roll.
It is surprising when they do, as Sacramento Kings’ analyst Bobby Jackson did last week; his co-host mentioned that embattled Kings’ head coach George Karl was hired after last year’s all-star break, and Jackson responded “It can be post-All-Star break that he can leave, too. There ain’t nothing wrong with it. It’s just the business.” Jackson also said in a separate comment that “I think I could come off this set and do a much better coaching job right now.” Bill Oram of The O.C. Register cites Jackson’s comments as an unusual example in a larger story that mostly focuses on the Lakers’ analysts who played with Byron Scott and haven’t been too overly critical of him, but the response to his comments is what really stands out:
It was quite the missive from a member of the Kings family.
“It’s my opinion that he should be fired or suspended,” Karl’s agent, Warren LeGarie, told the Register in an email. “(There’s) no place for that in a legitimate organization.”
As of Monday, the Kings had given no official response to Jackson’s comments.
A prominent coaching agent, LeGarie also represents D’Antoni and quickly recalls Worthy’s criticisms. He said analysts’ criticism can have real impact.
“They condition their audience, which ultimately influences the management,” he said.
LeGarie pointed out that Jackson is close to Vlade Divac and Peja Stojakovic, former teammates and two of the top three decision-makers in Sacramento. “It’s way more transparent when you know the cast of characters involved and way more obvious then,” LeGarie said. “Except to the fans who take what they say as gospel.”
For an agent to say there’s “no place” for game analysts to opine on coaches’ firings and call for the suspension of those who do illustrates just how little big-picture analysis many expect these analysts to give, and that’s problematic. Analysts shouldn’t be just restricted to talking about what’s going on in a particular game, as factors like the coach and general manager affect every game, and offering an opinion on whether or not a coach should be retained shouldn’t be prohibited. These analysts have a better sense than many of the mood around the team, and having their opinions out there isn’t a bad thing; it also can help to enhance a broadcast if people know where the analyst stands. Granted, Jackson didn’t pick the best way to do this; he should have made a more reasoned argument about what he believed to be issues with Karl’s coaching rather than just a quick “he should go.” Still, trying to restrict him from expressing his views on the state of the team is problematic.
LeGarie’s point that Jackson played with Divac and Stojakovic isn’t a bad one, though, and it’s certainly problematic if he’s expressing the views of the front office rather than his own views. That relates to the piece’s larger focus on the Lakers’ analysts who played with Scott. Here’s part of what Oram writes about James Worthy’s different levels of criticism when it came to Mike D’Antoni and now when it comes to Scott:
“(Mike) D’Antoni’s got to get into these guys a little bit more,” said Worthy on that night nearly two years ago. “He’s got to make them really a little bit more responsible, maybe call guys out.”
Worthy, an analyst with Time Warner Cable SportsNet, said the Lakers’ problems could be traced to the locker room, that they should practice only defense and that an offense focused on pace of play and 3-pointers simply wasn’t working.
Such frank analysis was welcomed by fed-up fans begging for a change on the bench. It’s also the sort of criticism from which Byron Scott, a teammate of Worthy’s from 1983-93, has recently been spared during an 11-43 season.
Oram goes on to get Worthy’s comments and discuss a specific example:
Worthy is aware of a perception that he has taken it easier on Scott than he did his predecessor
He even agrees.
“People have opinions based on Byron and I being close,” Worthy said after a recent Lakers practice, “but that has nothing to do with it.”
Instead, he argued, D’Antoni’s Lakers were built to win with Dwight Howard, Steve Nash and a healthy Kobe Bryant.
“I had an opportunity to be more critical then,” Worthy said. “But I see what Byron’s doing. I’m in the film room, I see the practices, I see the guys buying into it. They just haven’t been able to transfer it out to the court yet.”
When Scott made the unpopular decision to move D’Angelo Russell and Julius Randle out of the starting lineup on Dec. 6, Worthy initially recoiled with surprise.
By the end of that night’s broadcast, he had come around.
“I think Byron’s right,” Worthy said. “Sometimes you have to allow younger players to watch from the bench.”
Video of the segment was posted on the network’s Facebook page. The first comment, from a user named Lynne No, said, “James Worthy was always so candid about D’Antoni. Where’s your truth now James regarding Byron?”
It’s always going to be tough for game analysts to fully comment honestly, especially with many teams involved in selecting them or paying them, but they should be rewarded when they do so, not have agents calling for their firing. Viewers also should be informed about commenters’ potential biases; if giving an opinion on a coach or a general manager that they played with, that’s a worthwhile disclaimer for the analyst to mention (or for the play-by-play guy to mention when asking about the coach or GM). Ideally, game analysts would be able to speak honestly and candidly about the state of a franchise, and would largely put aside their biases to do so. That isn’t the current state of affairs, though, and LeGarie’s criticism of Jackson’s comments illustrates just how many in power expect these analysts to behave, breaking down the individual games, but not addressing larger issues the franchise may be facing.
