The Pistons have parted ways with Stan Van Gundy. What is their next step?

The Pistons have parted ways with Stan Van Gundy after 4 years. Van Gundy, who was both head coach and head of basketball operations, went 152-176 during his time with Detroit. What could this change mean? And what should the Pistons be looking for?

What about the decision to fire him?

I've covered this before, so I won't go too far into it. I would've preferred to see Van Gundy get another chance in his last year for several reasons, but the reality is this is a results league. Even if you look past his first year (which, due to the mess he inherited, is fair), the Pistons are a below .500 during his time in Detroit, with only one postseason appearance. Even though I felt Van Gundy did enough for the franchise to keep him, it is hard to argue with the decision to fire him, given his lack of consistent winning.

The bigger problem is how Van Gundy was fired. I have been, and remain, a fan of Tom Gores and the way he has run the Pistons. Most of the criticism directed towards him is unfounded; he largely has done what you want an owner to do: find people to empower, letting them do their jobs, and making sure they have ample resources to do so. Even though it didn't work out, Van Gundy was largely seen as the best option available when he was hired, and everyone in the organization raves about how willing Gores has been to put money into the team. That said, the fact that it took this long to fire Van Gundy is not a good look. While Gores was making his decision, two other teams filled their coaching vacancies, and others are further along in the process. I appreciate that Gores did not want to make a rash decision about Van Gundy, but this should've happened sooner.

The only interesting tidbit to me is that Van Gundy claims that he was willing to remain with the team as just a coach. When the news was announced, most assumed that Van Gundy keeping his front office duties was the sticking point that they couldn't get past. My guess is we will learn more details at some point.

Looking back

To decide where to go from here, the Pistons have to assess where they have been the past four years. An important job for the next regime will be to build off of the momentum Van Gundy made with the franchise without taking a step back. Most important is retaining the basic sense of professionalism and competence to the organization that had been missing for years before Van Gundy's arrival. During Van Gundy's time in Detroit, there were no player rebellions, no fights in the locker room, and almost nothing ever leaked out that they did not want. The quality of the product the Pistons put on the floor in Van Gundy's time may have been disappointing, but you cannot argue that Van Gundy did not run a tight ship. As such, it will be important that whoever takes over the team (both in the front office and as coaches) does not lose that ground. The Pistons need someone who will be able to keep that in place while also building on it.

What should the Pistons be looking for in the front office?

It is really hard to say. Us laypeople don't really grasp which front office guys really know what they are doing and which don't. The Pistons have expressed a desire to hire someone with experience, which is good, but I honestly won't get too into this. It is safe to assume that Gores has not changed his stance to avoid tanking or a massive rebuild, so there is a decent chance that the new General Manager may not have a huge impact on the roster, seeing as how the Pistons will have pretty limited flexibility over the next two years.

What should they be looking for in a coach?

Assuming the roster is mostly the same next season, the Pistons have three qualities they should want to emphasize in a coach, understanding that it is rare to find someone who possesses them all. (Since they are unlikely to hire the next Brad Stevens, they may have to decide which to prioritize.)

For starters, they will want to make sure they get someone who knows what they are doing. The Pistons are still a pretty young roster, but they are not the babies they were a couple of years ago -- Blake Griffin is an established veteran on a huge contract and Andre Drummond has been in the NBA for 6 years now. Hiring someone who cannot earn and keep the respect of a team full of veterans who want to win would be a disaster. While this does not disqualify candidates who have no head coaching experience, it should make the Pistons hesitant to go that route. An established head coach who knows how to lead a team in some capacity would certainly be less risky.

The second quality the Pistons should want in a new head coach is some offensive creativity. When healthy, this Pistons roster has a lot of offensive talent -- enough that, with a smart coach, they could be a great offensive team. However, there are enough questionable shooters on the roster that the team could turn into a total disaster on the offensive end if they select the wrong coach. A coach who is willing to limit Andre Drummond's post-ups, get Griffin moving off the ball, and find creative ways to get Reggie Bullock and Luke Kennard open off the ball would be big. Basically, don't hire some stooge who is going to alternate between Griffin and Drummond posting up every possession, because that could get ugly fast. This is the biggest area where Van Gundy fell short as a coach. He was not a stooge, but he often lacked creativity on the offensive end. You can't go backward from Van Gundy; you need an improvement.

Last (but not least), the Pistons will want a coach who is able to instill competency into the defense. Unless Drummond takes another leap defensively, which isn't totally out of the question, the Pistons do not have a great defensive roster. Drummond is very good but not great, and Stanley Johnson is very good but a tricky piece to play on offense. Beyond those two you can make an argument that the Pistons do not have another guy with clear defensive skill other than Eric Moreland, who was only in the rotation due to injuries. The good news is that the rest of the guys on the roster are the types who are generally pretty smart and, at least this past year, mostly try hard on defense. That means that, with the right coach, the Pistons can still be a competent defensive team despite a clear lack of defensive talent. This was Van Gundy's greatest accomplishment as a coach: he consistently had a pretty solid defensive team that was both efficient (near the top ten in defensive efficiency every year) and rebounded well. If the new coach cannot instill the same defensive intensity, the Pistons' defense could crumble, and that would be bad.

Which of those three is most important?

I'm honestly, I'm not sure. I would probably be least concerned about a coach who can hold the locker room because most candidates should be able to do that. However, this is still a concern and could have a disastrous impact on a team like the Pistons, who should have enough talent on the roster to succeed even with a coach who is not as strong with the X's and O's.

As for offense or defense, I think I'd probably rather take a creative offensive coach, but that preference is only a slight one. When I look at the roster, even with a coach who doesn't emphasize defense, the Pistons will still rebound like crazy with Drummond and Griffin (they did so this past season), and Drummond is good enough to keep the team somewhat respectable even by himself. The Pistons have enough talent that, with the right coach, I think they could become a truly elite offensive team; with the wrong coach they will not come close. I've always maintained that in basketball I will take being great at something over being pretty good at several things.

What about specific candidates?

Now that Budenholzer is gone, the potential options are not great. This was a big reason why I was in favor of keeping Van Gundy: the market just isn't that inspiring. I would probably stay away from a college guy like Jay Wright because I'm not sure the Pistons can afford to take that shot.. As for NBA assistants without head coaching experience, it is hard to say because we don't know how much they have to do with the success of their teams.

The wildcard is Jerry Stackhouse. His success in the G-League is impressive, especially his ability to coach defense combined with his playing experience -- which would make securing the team's respect a non-issue. But once again, the NBA is not the G-League. Who knows how much it would translate?

What about Becky Hammon?

Everyone is asking this so much that I'm considering making an entire post for it. In short, I'd be hesitant with her for the same reason I'd be hesitant for anyone who only has four years of experience as an assistant. That just isn't enough for a team that needs to win now and can't afford to let a new coach go through any sort of growing pains. In my opinion, the tricky thing for Hammon is identifying the best possible situational fit for her. On the one hand, she could be a great fit for a younger team of hungry players who can grow up under her leadership. (That's the exact opposite of where the Pistons are.) On the other hand, the best fit for the first-ever female head coach could be a more veteran team, one that is full of professionals, one that, when asked, "What is it like to have a female head coach?" would simply respond with, "She gets paid just like everyone else. It's her job to coach and our job to play."

Any last thoughts?

I'm kind of worried about this. I really liked Budenholzer, but he has not joined the Bucks. Maybe Stackhouse is my favorite of the remaining options, but anyone without head coaching experience would still concern me even if they worked out. The Pistons are in a tricky spot and whoever they hire for both coach and GM will have a big impact on the team.