Hypertrophic | Ham, who is known for his defense, is not the main person responsible for the Lakers' poor record

With the team's four-game losing streak falling to 11th in the West and Shams breaking out locker room problems, Lakers coach Davin Ham has been pushed to the forefront recently.

Tell me what I think.

Hamm's question is tricky.

On the one hand, the current management cannot find a suitable candidate to replace Ham in a short period of time, and second, objectively speaking, the current situation of the Lakers this season, Ham may not be the main responsible person.

In fact, if you think about it, many of Ham's decisions this season are also "going according to plan" - such as practicing Reaves, such as DNP Russell at some times, such as allowing James to "play away" at some times (such as the first three quarters or after the half-season), such as shooting fewer three-pointers in some games, and experimenting with the lineup......

Most of the main reasons that have affected the Lakers' record this season are not Ham's personal wishes, but more based on the team's "long-term plan", but ultimately led to Ham's loss of prestige in the locker room.

The plan is made above, but when the plan fails, it becomes the person who executes the plan — not just in the NBA, but in fact everywhere.

Ham has reason to feel aggrieved, which is why he says – "still aligned with Jenny Bass and Rob Pelinka, and he'll keep his head down until that little bit changes."

In fact, in the past season and a half, we can also clearly see what Hamm is good at and what he is not good at:

He is good at adjusting defense, and in the playoffs, he can "surprise tactics" to effectively target the opposite side - in the first round, he limited the Gunners and Bane by changing the defensive cover, in the second round he adjusted the opposition to limit Curry with Van der Biao and Schroder, and in the Western Conference finals, the "No. 4 and No. 5 wrong defense" is also the best way to limit Jokic, and the midseason tournament has also had wonderful targeted arrangements for Durant, Booker, Zion, and Haliburton and all of them were successful.

He is good at "strategic deployment", and the three rounds of the playoffs have a strong "sense of design": against the Grizzlies, against the Warriors, to grab the start and to grab the away, against the Nuggets to start the game may be completely different if it is not for the loss to Yomu's Super God series, and the midseason finals completely abandon the three points, and the Pacers' speed and all-out attack on the frame layout has also become the most brilliant "strategic victory" of the midseason tournament.

His ability to communicate with players is also his forte.

What he is not good at is the layout of offensive tactics and the construction of the offensive system - Hamm's basketball philosophy and winning logic are based on defense, and on the offensive end, he relies more on the ball-handler's own development ability to solve problems and lacks the tactical design of the off-ball end - Beasley, Lonnie Walker, Hachimura, Prince and other players with certain independent offensive ability have not fully exerted their abilities in Hamm's system. (This can be seen from the tracking data)

Ham has more than just "chicken soup", he's actually more like a "playoff coach" — but the Lakers have given him the task this season to be the weak link in his coaching ability.

The Lakers let go of his favorite Schroder, and Vincent's injury left an important link missing an important link in his system;

The Lakers have assembled a multi-point lineup, improved shooting ability, and hopes to win more games on offense - but building an offensive system and winning on offense is not what Ham is good at;

The Lakers' lineup this season has a serious problem of "not being able to take care of offense and defense", which is also contrary to Ham's basketball philosophy;

The Lakers want to practice Reaves and use the depth of the team (which can be understood to some extent as egalitarianism), and Ham is responsible for communicating with players as a player-oriented coach, but there are two sides to everything, and doing too much is counterproductive......

As a result, Ham and the Lakers gradually came to this point.

Is he to blame? Of course he should be blamed - if he is Spoelstra...... The Lakers' plan may have been executed.

But is it all his fault? Of course not -- if there is still Schroder on the team, if he is not given all kinds of miscellaneous restrictions, if he is built and played according to his basketball philosophy, can't the Lakers win? I think you have the answer in your mind.

In addition to worrying about the ability of the new coach, there are also some "political issues" to worry about in the mid-season change of coach - Ham has tried more than 30 games and can't try out the starting lineup, of course, it is a problem, but if the new coach comes up, he will move to the same set of the season and go all the way to the black.

I now have the following concerns:

1. The candidate for the new coach and his ability. (It's hard to analyze this, because 80% of a coach's job is "under the water," and it's hard to get the full picture of a coach's job.) However, it is impossible to change the coach in the middle of the season, and it is likely that you can only dig internally or find someone who is familiar with the system. ）

2. The new official takes office with three fires. If the Lakers change coaches, the new coach will definitely want to prove himself by quickly improving his record in the short term - and to achieve this, it is almost necessary for Zhan Mei to pull full output and time. But could that hurt the Lakers' long-term plans?

3. Rotation issues. The number one reason why Ham is now dissatisfied with the players is the rotation arrangement, and if there is a change of coach, Russell, Reaves, Vanderbilt and others will inevitably be the beneficiaries - the Lakers have a good chance of returning to the same set of starters last season, or fine-tuning on that basis.

However, I will be a little worried about whether the new coach will "overkill" - with Hamm's "lessons from the past", will he dare to make any more adjustments to the lineup? Will he still dare to take Russell and Reeves as the starter when necessary? Is he willing to continue to give "former favorites" like Reddish time?

These are all unknowns.

To be honest, changing coaches in the middle of the season is really a very risky thing to do, and I really don't want to see the Lakers do that unless it is absolutely necessary. But now Hamm is out of favor – the worst for a manager. You can only take one step at a time.