Controversy about changing coaches in the Knicks: When sports achievements meet championship anxiety

Democratic mayoral candidates in New York City were also involved in hot discussions about Tom Thibodeau. During Wednesday's debate, each candidate had to speak out about the New York Knicks' decision to fire Thibodeau after losing to the Indiana Pacers in the Eastern Conference Finals. Seven candidates disapprove of the Knicks’ approach, only Michael Black stood on the side of James Dolan and Leon Rose.

"Our goal is to win the finals, not to enter the Eastern Conference Finals," said Black. Most of the views on the stage also seem to represent the mainstream view of the sports circle - at least at the beginning. Thibodeau just took the Knicks to the finals and completed his first semi-final breakthrough in 25 years. This is no longer the warm "Villa Novan Knicks" last year, partly because of the Carl Anthony Towns deal that changed the team's fate before training camp began. But the Knicks successfully digested the changes: 51 wins, third in the Eastern Conference, two rounds of playoff wins, including defeating the defending champion (if Jason Tatum was not injured, they might have controlled that series long ago), and an indisputable Eastern Conference Final - if it weren't for the dramatic loss of the first game, the result might have been different.

In terms of merit, Thibodeau should have remained. Isn’t sports a place that talks about strength? There are already too many things in life that cannot be said to be finalized, and sports should have the opposite - this is a value that many fans believe in.

"The first time I saw the news," Pacers coach Rick Carlisle talked about Thibodeau's dismissal on Wednesday, "I thought it was fake news generated by AI."

, but the statement of "merit" can be interpreted differently. We always hear people say that sports is a business that depends on the results, and results are now both more complex and simpler. The latter example is Black's words - or, in other words, the "ring culture" that some people mocked. If winning the championship becomes the only important thing and the team considers itself a competitor, the NBA will become a zero-sum game, and only one team can laugh to the end. If the team doesn't win as expected, they have to find someone to take the blame. If Thibodeau did not get the split locker room, did not fully display the team's strength (the playoff offensive struggle is proof), and did not adjust the rotation in time, why would he still be kept? Another value that sports fans value is team consistency - from bosses to management, coaching staff to players. If the management does not believe in the coach, or the players do not believe in the management, then it will definitely not be able to play, right?

If you think this is the premise for winning the championship, then I recommend you to watch the "unpopular" documentary "The Last Dance". Let’s take a look at the Denver Nuggets’ sudden firing of coach Michael Malone and general manager Calvin Booth in the last week of the regular season.

This is in sharp contrast to the Knicks' situation. Malone just took the Nuggets to win the first championship in team history two years ago, but was fired not long after winning the championship (in the past four years, Nick Nass, Frank Vogel, and Mike Budenholzer were all dismissed soon after winning the championship), which looked like throwing the "reward on merit" aside.

But there are reasons to say that the Nuggets should have done so long ago. Malone and Booth had a long quarrel before, which caused many internal conflicts among the team. Although Malone led the team to 57 wins and 50 wins (the latter was temporarily coached by David Adelman), the boss still felt that he had not maintained the harmony of the team - at least in Malone, there were still people who took responsibility with him.

The problem is that there are signs of this contradiction, and it did not break out suddenly. The management and coaching staff had differences before winning the championship, but were covered by the results. Everyone was very happy to watch the championship parade, but it does not mean there is no potential problem that cannot be solved (a year after winning the championship, the problem is even more obvious).

Think about it, what if the Nuggets fired Malone and Booth after losing at home in the second round of last season? If the Knicks learn from the Nuggets and the Grizzlies, would they fire up coaches who have coached for a long time before the playoffs? This does not mean that they are in harmony during the season, or that they perform unexpectedly - as long as they want to find a reason to change their coach, they can always find it.

There is a simple reason behind these dismissals: the window period for championship is much shorter than before. Player contracts are shorter, new labor-capital agreements are more stringent, and the anxiety of "either win or get out" is unprecedentedly strong. It takes less and less time to find the perfect lineup. If you feel that you are in the championship lineup, you have to ensure that the leadership is reliable.

The problem is not whether these dismissals are right or wrong, but why they seem both right and wrong. This is not to say that "deserved is not important" (to borrow the lines from "Unforgivable"), but that when it comes to leading an NBA team, it has never been so difficult to define "deserved".