If this this historic losing streak continues, Doc will by gone by January 20th!!!Yes, how can he not get everything out of this team of young studs in their prime?
He is an average coach at best, and he apparently has LOST this team.
This is sad. The effort is pitiful. The commitment to small ball by Doc is simply astonishing.
We might be playing the WORST basketball in the NBA.
Smitty77
ainge already stated that he wouldn't fire doc
ainge already stated that he wouldn't fire doc
He also said he loved Perk like family, and was an important part of the Celtics
IF Doc is gone so is KF PP and Rondo. So unless its a complete blow up and maybe a Jeff VanGundy is knocking on the door, I don't see it happening.The bold is what I was about to state. If Doc leaves then most of the players will leave too since part of the reason why they either stayed or came to Boston was because of Doc.
Don't see it happeningIf he continues to put Sullinger on Marc Gasol it could. That's just screaming "I made a bet on this game". It's beyond horrid coaching
IF Doc is gone so is KF PP and Rondo. So unless its a complete blow up and maybe a Jeff VanGundy is knocking on the door, I don't see it happening.just wondering if their contract is tied with glen the genius' contract?
I guess that Rivers, Danny's buddy according to most of you all, doesn't have enough pull to demand to give Fab some actual playing time??????
I bet players would think twice after Fab knocks a few into the stands!!!
Give the kid a chance. Demand it Doc. You have the pull with your buddy Danny.
Smitty77
IF Doc is gone so is KF PP and Rondo. So unless its a complete blow up and maybe a Jeff VanGundy is knocking on the door, I don't see it happening.just wondering if their contract is tied with glen the genius' contract?
Has anyone considered praying to St Anthony? Because Doc's ability to coach is missing
naah. It's a lack of talent that's the problem... not coaching.
If we don't make a move to bring in some big man help... get ready for the long winter. Our true stars (Pierce and KG) are on their last legs. Ray is already gone. Rondo isn't the type of player to carry a team.
naah. It's a lack of talent that's the problem... not coaching.
If we don't make a move to bring in some big man help... get ready for the long winter. Our true stars (Pierce and KG) are on their last legs. Ray is already gone. Rondo isn't the type of player to carry a team.
naah. It's a lack of talent that's the problem... not coaching.
If we don't make a move to bring in some big man help... get ready for the long winter. Our true stars (Pierce and KG) are on their last legs. Ray is already gone. Rondo isn't the type of player to carry a team.
YUP TP !! That pretty much sums it all up .
Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
He's really had _one_ good assistance in Tom Thibodeau. He won COTY all on his own, and I don't think Lawrence Frank was any sort of a coaching genius.Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
Doc's a mixed bag and he does best when he has good assistants to cover for his weaknesses, but you're right: he's an asset to the team who helps attract talent.
Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
Doc's a mixed bag and he does best when he has good assistants to cover for his weaknesses, but you're right: he's an asset to the team who helps attract talent.
Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
LOLOOLOLOLOLOL
Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
this season has done nothing to assure him being any kind of top asset for the future....his system sucks for many players and obviously he isnt going to tweak anything to fit players stregths. hes a manager of personalites at best, a guy like tom thibodeau is an actual coach
Don't see it happeningIf he continues to put Sullinger on Marc Gasol it could. That's just screaming "I made a bet on this game". It's beyond horrid coaching
Don't see it happeningIf he continues to put Sullinger on Marc Gasol it could. That's just screaming "I made a bet on this game". It's beyond horrid coaching
Seriously, tell me who else Doc should put on Gasol if KG is on ZR? What other 7' stud defender do we have on this team? And don't say collins or I will throw up.
Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
LOLOOLOLOLOLOL
He's right. Boston as a city isn't sexy, Pierce and KG are gone this year or next, we've got Rondo, a tradition of winning, and a history of competent management. Docs a part of that, and hopefully Pierce remains in some capacity.
He's really had _one_ good assistance in Tom Thibodeau. He won COTY all on his own, and I don't think Lawrence Frank was any sort of a coaching genius.Doc is one of the Cs top assets for the future. He'll be around as long as the Cs can keep him.
Doc's a mixed bag and he does best when he has good assistants to cover for his weaknesses, but you're right: he's an asset to the team who helps attract talent.
Doc done won a Chamionship, just like Sporstra or Jackson , if he got the talent ...Doc can get the job done.
You gotta have the horses,.
C's team is underpower to make a run . maybe .500 ball team
Doc done won a Chamionship, just like Sporstra or Jackson , if he got the talent ...Doc can get the job done.
You gotta have the horses,.
C's team is underpower to make a run . maybe .500 ball team
talent can make a clown coach look good. see spoelstra. jackson? he had MJ. Shaq. Kobe. Gasol. how could he not win? you have to be able to see if the guy is actually getting the most out of his guys and developing talent. and using a smart style to fit his players.
right now, doc is a failure at that.
Doc done won a Chamionship, just like Sporstra or Jackson , if he got the talent ...Doc can get the job done.
You gotta have the horses,.
C's team is underpower to make a run . maybe .500 ball team
talent can make a clown coach look good. see spoelstra. jackson? he had MJ. Shaq. Kobe. Gasol. how could he not win? you have to be able to see if the guy is actually getting the most out of his guys and developing talent. and using a smart style to fit his players.
right now, doc is a failure at that.
Doc is gonna step up and pull dis team though... he justs needs Danny Ainge to get him some help for his D' in the paint.
Doc done won a Chamionship, just like Sporstra or Jackson , if he got the talent ...Doc can get the job done.
You gotta have the horses,.
C's team is underpower to make a run . maybe .500 ball team
talent can make a clown coach look good. see spoelstra. jackson? he had MJ. Shaq. Kobe. Gasol. how could he not win? you have to be able to see if the guy is actually getting the most out of his guys and developing talent. and using a smart style to fit his players.
right now, doc is a failure at that.
Doc is gonna step up and pull dis team though... he justs needs Danny Ainge to get him some help for his D' in the paint.
GOD help us if not. and BTW, i am not saying doc has failed developing melo or sully only that it is part of the equation in grading a coach along with style and getting the most out of each player.
way too soon to judge him on that. we can do that in a couple years if doc is still here then.
To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
Don't see it happeningIf he continues to put Sullinger on Marc Gasol it could. That's just screaming "I made a bet on this game". It's beyond horrid coaching
Seriously, tell me who else Doc should put on Gasol if KG is on ZR? What other 7' stud defender do we have on this team? And don't say collins or I will throw up.
because kg on gasol is a bad match up.Don't see it happeningIf he continues to put Sullinger on Marc Gasol it could. That's just screaming "I made a bet on this game". It's beyond horrid coaching
Seriously, tell me who else Doc should put on Gasol if KG is on ZR? What other 7' stud defender do we have on this team? And don't say collins or I will throw up.
Why not just switch Sullinger on Randolph, and put KG on Gasol?
because kg on gasol is a bad match up.Don't see it happeningIf he continues to put Sullinger on Marc Gasol it could. That's just screaming "I made a bet on this game". It's beyond horrid coaching
Seriously, tell me who else Doc should put on Gasol if KG is on ZR? What other 7' stud defender do we have on this team? And don't say collins or I will throw up.
Why not just switch Sullinger on Randolph, and put KG on Gasol?
If this this historic losing streak continues, Doc will by gone by January 20th!!!
He is an average coach at best, and he apparently has LOST this team.
This is sad. The effort is pitiful. The commitment to small ball by Doc is simply astonishing.
We might be playing the WORST basketball in the NBA.
Smitty77
The TS% numbers were always good, esp when Ray and Pierce were shooting 40%+ from deep.
But we're a jump shooting team. Our best penetration threats are a sometimes unwilling Rondo, and an aging pierce. So if our jumper isn't falling, our PPPossession numbers are up and down at best.
Defense was always the strength.
Hey you guys remember when Pierce, KG, and Ray were all in their early-30s?
The TS% numbers were always good, esp when Ray and Pierce were shooting 40%+ from deep.
But we're a jump shooting team. Our best penetration threats are a sometimes unwilling Rondo, and an aging pierce. So if our jumper isn't falling, our PPPossession numbers are up and down at best.
Defense was always the strength.
Hey you guys remember when Pierce, KG, and Ray were all in their early-30s?
What about other offensive measures, like number of shots
number of free throws
turnovers
and numbers of quarters below 20 points? How about building an offense that doesn't rely on jump shooting? How about NOT starting out this season expecting Terry and Lee to run the exact same plays that Ray did when he was here?
Mike
To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
an elementary student or a high school dropout could draw up out of timeout basketball plays...completely overrated
To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
an elementary student or a high school dropout could draw up out of timeout basketball plays...completely overrated
Then why is Doc so much better at it than almost all coaches in the league?
To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
an elementary student or a high school dropout could draw up out of timeout basketball plays...completely overrated
Then why is Doc so much better at it than almost all coaches in the league?
yeah because a Paul pierce iso or Rondo to kg alley pop is rocket science....face it they need no coach at all to do these plays
To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
You can monkey around with stats to prove almost anything. Sometimes you just gotta look at the bottom line.
Boston's lost 17 games this year. In 10 of those losses, they scored less than 90 points. Even if they were playing excellent defense, there's a pretty good chance they still would have lost most of those games. So if Boston were playing great D, that would only make the difference between being 14-17 and being...what? 16-15? 17-14? 18-13? Better, but still faaaaaar below what just about everyone expected of them this season.
Mike
I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense.
Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.
I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
You can monkey around with stats to prove almost anything. Sometimes you just gotta look at the bottom line.
But I mean, what exactly are people proving? Nobody is proving that the C's have a good team this year.QuoteBoston's lost 17 games this year. In 10 of those losses, they scored less than 90 points. Even if they were playing excellent defense, there's a pretty good chance they still would have lost most of those games. So if Boston were playing great D, that would only make the difference between being 14-17 and being...what? 16-15? 17-14? 18-13? Better, but still faaaaaar below what just about everyone expected of them this season.
Mike
Boston is currently allowing 102.1 points per 100 possessions.
Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense. Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket. Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring. A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.
Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.
Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
an elementary student or a high school dropout could draw up out of timeout basketball plays...completely overrated
Then why is Doc so much better at it than almost all coaches in the league?
yeah because a Paul pierce iso or Rondo to kg alley pop is rocket science....face it they need no coach at all to do these plays
Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense. Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket. Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring. A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.
Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.
Like, for example, points per game, or something? :POh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
It's monkeying around with stats when you take ONE stat and declare that it's the ONLY stat that matters and NOTHING else.
Yes, if the ONLY thing we consider is shooting percentages, Boston's offense looks pretty good. However, there are several other factors that are also important in truly determining the quality of a team's offense. I'm not sure what that should be hard for anyone to understand.
Mike
I don't know what reasonable person would use PPG as a measure of offense. We've been consistently a top team in terms of raw shooting percentage -- including this season (6th in the league). The problem is we can no longer stop anyone (21st in the league in opponent FG%, compare to 2nd in the 2008-2009 season, for example).To be clear I don't think he'll be fired nor should he be,Pace. They have always been amongst the most efficient offenses since the Big Three Era started but their pace is always one of the slowest in the league so therefore, overall PPG, their offense is middle of the pack.
But I've often wondered why the Celtics offense hasn't been better throughout the years. He's a great play caller out of timeouts, and the roster has always had a good deal of fire power. Never could understand why we're always near the middle of the pack offensively.
You can monkey around with stats to prove almost anything. Sometimes you just gotta look at the bottom line.
But I mean, what exactly are people proving? Nobody is proving that the C's have a good team this year.QuoteBoston's lost 17 games this year. In 10 of those losses, they scored less than 90 points. Even if they were playing excellent defense, there's a pretty good chance they still would have lost most of those games. So if Boston were playing great D, that would only make the difference between being 14-17 and being...what? 16-15? 17-14? 18-13? Better, but still faaaaaar below what just about everyone expected of them this season.
Mike
Boston is currently allowing 102.1 points per 100 possessions.
If we're going by points per 100 possessions, Boston's defense is ranked 14th in the league. That's better than Miami. Boston's offense per 100 possessions, though, is tied for 20th. So, even by that standard, it's the offense that's as much or more of a problem than the defense.
Mike
Like, for example, points per game, or something? :POh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
It's monkeying around with stats when you take ONE stat and declare that it's the ONLY stat that matters and NOTHING else.
Yes, if the ONLY thing we consider is shooting percentages, Boston's offense looks pretty good. However, there are several other factors that are also important in truly determining the quality of a team's offense. I'm not sure what that should be hard for anyone to understand.
Mike
Do you understand how a discussion works, let alone an argument?Yes, like for example person A brings in points per game, and person B brings in shooting percentage.
Person A makes a point.
Then, Person B makes a point.
Then, Person A responds to Person B's point.
Then, Person B responds to Person A's response.
Even if the same team is keeping the ball, they get a new clock. That's how I see it.Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense. Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket. Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring. A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.
Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.
It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.
It depends on what you want to evaluate.Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense. Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket. Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring. A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.
Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.
It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.
As I understand is, the idea of PPP is to normalize for the fact that some teams just take less time of the shot clock to work with, thereby resulting in more raw stats per game, for obvious reasons.It depends on what you want to evaluate.Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense. Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket. Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring. A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.
Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.
It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.
The ability of a team to score the ball given one 24 second shot clock to work with, or the ability to generate offense over an entire game in totality. Getting more shots than the other team is certainly an offensive "skill" of teams.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that offensive rebounds should be a new possession. It separates out even better "possession creation" that otherwise is limited to steals and/or forced turnovers.
But really either way its all about how you organize the data, creating more shots for your team is a great way to get wins.
It depends on what you want to evaluate.Right, and why is an offensive rebound not considered a "new trip down the floor"? In my mind, each trip ends with a shot, turnover, or a shooting foul. Not to mention that adding 0.44*PF to the number of possessions is a dodgy mechanic at best.Oh, so taking raw shooting percentage is "monkeying with stats" now? Or is "look at the bottom line" some sort of new lingo for "just ignore the facts and soldier on".
Our ranks in shooting percentage:
2008: 4th
2009: 2nd
2010: 4th
2011: 1nd
2012: 5th
2013: 6th
We've been a team that consistenty takes good shots. To me, that's a sign of good offensive execution and efficiency. I've never understood why an offensive rebound is not considered an extra possession.
If you look at it as "how likely is a team to score on a trip down the floor", it makes sense. Offensive efficiency is essentially a measure of how likely a team is to put the ball in the basket. Likewise, defensive efficiency measures how likely a team is to stop the other team from scoring. A "possession" only ends when the opposing team gets the ball.
Under our standard, we're very poor relative to our peers.
It's not a new trip down the floor because the same team is keeping possession.
The ability of a team to score the ball given one 24 second shot clock to work with, or the ability to generate offense over an entire game in totality. Getting more shots than the other team is certainly an offensive "skill" of teams.
I'm sympathetic to the idea that offensive rebounds should be a new possession. It separates out even better "possession creation" that otherwise is limited to steals and/or forced turnovers.
But really either way its all about how you organize the data, creating more shots for your team is a great way to get wins.
Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
exactly, and the difference between those two is obvious i.e. the other team doesn't have a chance to score in between the shots. The more you have the ball the less your opponent has it. That is how you win games, limit your opponents scoring opportunities as much as possible, while maximizing your own.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
Another measure is getting to the free throw line and hitting your three pointers at a high rate.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
Another measure is getting to the free throw line and hitting your three pointers at a high rate.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
Miami has been one of the more efficient offenses in the league when using offensive efficiency as a measuring tool but like Boston has been one of the worse offensive rebounding teams in the league as well.
The difference is Miami goes to the basket a lot, draws a lot of free throws, makes a lot of their free throws and hits a high percentage of three point shots.
Boston has a highly efficient offense if you consider points per shot taken. You don't necessarily have to rebound the ball well on the offensive side to be an efficient offense, not that I am say anyone is making that claim. But you do need to keep the turnovers down and hit your shots and get your share of FTs.
The continuing reliance on outside jump shooting is starting to kill this team.
That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same number of times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same numbeer of times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same number of times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
I guess I just consider generating extra opportunities distinctly different measure from the actual ability to get a bucket in a given opportunity.That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same numbeer of times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
Is this the scenario?
A: Celtics have ball. Miss shot. Lakers get ball. (Outcome unknown). Celtics get ball, make shot. Lakers get ball.
B: Celtics have ball. Miss shot. Offensive rebound. Make shot. Lakers get ball.
Sure, in each case there's a miss and a make. However, in the second scenario, the Celtics offense prevents a possession for the Lakers. Ball control -- whether through preventing turnovers or grabbing offensive boards -- is a sign of a good offense.
Roy explained the situation in his post. Sorry if it was unclear.That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same number of times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
There's something missing here. Team one missed one shot. Team two missed two shots. I take it that was a typo.
So both teams missed one shot, only one team has 1 PPP and the other 2 PPP because of the offensive rebound.
What is missing here is, what happened when the first team missed his shot? Did the second team score or miss? Let's say they scored for the sake of argument.
Team two then scored 4 points to the first team's 2, taking 3 shots in 2 possessions, so the 2 PPP remains true. If they missed, then it would be the same as the first team 1 PPP, only they would have shot 1/3 from the field.
So in all there's a possession here missing you're not accounting for.
Roy explained the situation in his post. Sorry if it was unclear.That's the point, both teams have put the ball in the hoop exactly the same number of times, taking roughly the same time off the clock in total (if we assume similar time to taking a shot off). Except the second team boasts PPP that's twice as large.Why should be a team who takes two shots and misses one (1 PPP) considered worse offensively than a team that sandwiches an offensive rebound between the two misses (2 PPP)? It just doesn't make much sense.
Sure it does, if the second team does that consistently.
Offense is a measure of putting the ball in the hoop. If a team does that consistently by dominating rebounds on offense, that's a measure of good offense.
There's something missing here. Team one missed one shot. Team two missed two shots. I take it that was a typo.
So both teams missed one shot, only one team has 1 PPP and the other 2 PPP because of the offensive rebound.
What is missing here is, what happened when the first team missed his shot? Did the second team score or miss? Let's say they scored for the sake of argument.
Team two then scored 4 points to the first team's 2, taking 3 shots in 2 possessions, so the 2 PPP remains true. If they missed, then it would be the same as the first team 1 PPP, only they would have shot 1/3 from the field.
So in all there's a possession here missing you're not accounting for.
In essence, both teams score one basket on two shots, except the PPP is different, because one of them didn't get an offensive rebound.
Let's say they're playing against each other. You still have a possession unaccounted for. The first team missed after all after scoring in a secondary possession.To quote Roy:
You only provided the second team with one possession when they should've had two just the same.
Let's say they're playing against each other. You still have a possession unaccounted for. The first team missed after all after scoring in a secondary possession.To quote Roy:
You only provided the second team with one possession when they should've had two just the same.
A: Celtics have ball. Miss shot. Lakers get ball. (Outcome unknown). Celtics get ball, make shot. Lakers get ball.
B: Celtics have ball. Miss shot. Offensive rebound. Make shot. Lakers get ball
In this particular case, we're trying to capture the offensive efficiency of the Celtics. Laker possessions should be all but irrelevant.
Unless you have a typo in your examples, you're missing the debate entirely.Let's say they're playing against each other. You still have a possession unaccounted for. The first team missed after all after scoring in a secondary possession.To quote Roy:
You only provided the second team with one possession when they should've had two just the same.
A: Celtics have ball. Miss shot. Lakers get ball. (Outcome unknown). Celtics get ball, make shot. Lakers get ball.
B: Celtics have ball. Miss shot. Offensive rebound. Make shot. Lakers get ball
In this particular case, we're trying to capture the offensive efficiency of the Celtics. Laker possessions should be all but irrelevant.
I don't see how you can not find it relevant. And I don't think those are good examples because we're not comparing the same amount of possessions.
Example C.
Lakers miss shot. Celtics get ball and score. Lakers make shot. Celtics miss shot, offensive rebound, and score.
I combined the two scenarios above into one possibility of in-game situation/
In example C, Celtics when 2/3 for 4 points in two possessions, 2 PPP
Example D.
Lakers miss shot. Celtics get ball and miss. Lakers make shot. Celtics miss shot, offensive rebound, and score.
In example D, Celtics went 1/3 for 2 points in two possessions, 1 PPP (basically the same as scenario A, but with an additional miss).
I hope this illustrates the importance of including the possession that is missing from the scenarios that have been presented to this point.
Let me reiterate again:Yeah, I think of the Joe Johnson led Atlanta Hawks, the Chicago Bulls, and Brandon Roy Trailblazers as teams when this issue comes up.
The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.
The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.
Let me reiterate again:
The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.
The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.
The point is, in both cases the Celtics have had two shot clocks, and have taken two shots -- and the 1 possession vs 2 possession is a bizzare artifact of the idea that getting an offensive rebound somehow counts for "extending" the possession rather than generating a new one.Let me reiterate again:
The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.
The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.
It's the all else equal part that I'm finding lacking. In one example the Celtics had 2 possessions. In the second example they had 1 possession.
And as I illustrated above, grabbing an offensive rebound doesn't necessarily lead to better results. In fact, it might lead to a lower FG% if the subsequent shot was missed. But in maintaining the equality of the possessions, it would be reflected just the same as in the scenario A mentioned above, only with a lower FG%, yet with the same PPP.
Make with that what you will. One team having the same PPP as another team, doesn't mean that they're as efficient with their shots, but it does reflect their ability to score the ball given the possession.
If this this historic losing streak continues, Doc will by gone by January 20th!!!
He is an average coach at best, and he apparently has LOST this team.
This is sad. The effort is pitiful. The commitment to small ball by Doc is simply astonishing.
We might be playing the WORST basketball in the NBA.
Smitty77
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
Boy, I wonder what the Celtics will do when Doc "Coach for life" Rivers retires in 30 years and they have to get someone to replace him. What pitiful mortal could ever hope to follow the Alpha and Omega of all coaching glory? Maybe by then they'll have perfected human cloning so there shall never be anyone except a "Doc" coaching Boston's intrepid team!
Our Doc, who art in Boston,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy contract be ever extended,
Thy decisions never be questioned,
on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day another day of not playing Darko.
Forgive us for wondering why you're running Jason Terry off baseline screens.
Lead us not into the temptation of wanting a team that doesn't suck,
But deliver us from the evil of doubting Thine Eternal Perfection,
For Thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory.
For ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Amen.
Mike
Very convincing. Has this ever worked when you've run out of reasonable arguments?If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
Boy, I wonder what the Celtics will do when Doc "Coach for life" Rivers retires in 30 years and they have to get someone to replace him. What pitiful mortal could ever hope to follow the Alpha and Omega of all coaching glory? Maybe by then they'll have perfected human cloning so there shall never be anyone except a "Doc" coaching Boston's intrepid team!
Our Doc, who art in Boston,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy contract be ever extended,
Thy decisions never be questioned,
on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day another day of not playing Darko.
Forgive us for wondering why you're running Jason Terry off baseline screens.
Lead us not into the temptation of wanting a team that doesn't suck,
But deliver us from the evil of doubting Thine Eternal Perfection,
For Thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory.
For ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Amen.
Mike
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
Boy, I wonder what the Celtics will do when Doc "Coach for life" Rivers retires in 30 years and they have to get someone to replace him. What pitiful mortal could ever hope to follow the Alpha and Omega of all coaching glory? Maybe by then they'll have perfected human cloning so there shall never be anyone except a "Doc" coaching Boston's intrepid team!
Our Doc, who art in Boston,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy contract be ever extended,
Thy decisions never be questioned,
on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day another day of not playing Darko.
Forgive us for wondering why you're running Jason Terry off baseline screens.
Lead us not into the temptation of wanting a team that doesn't suck,
But deliver us from the evil of doubting Thine Eternal Perfection,
For Thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory.
For ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Amen.
Mike
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
Boy, I wonder what the Celtics will do when Doc "Coach for life" Rivers retires in 30 years and they have to get someone to replace him. What pitiful mortal could ever hope to follow the Alpha and Omega of all coaching glory? Maybe by then they'll have perfected human cloning so there shall never be anyone except a "Doc" coaching Boston's intrepid team!
Our Doc, who art in Boston,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy contract be ever extended,
Thy decisions never be questioned,
on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day another day of not playing Darko.
Forgive us for wondering why you're running Jason Terry off baseline screens.
Lead us not into the temptation of wanting a team that doesn't suck,
But deliver us from the evil of doubting Thine Eternal Perfection,
For Thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory.
For ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Amen.
Mike
Doc is not getting fired while KG and Pierce are still here. KG, Pierce, and Rondo are all on record saying they want to play only for Doc the rest of their careers. If Doc is fired, KG and Pierce will retire, and Rondo will ask for a trade.
Doc is not getting fired while KG and Pierce are still here. KG, Pierce, and Rondo are all on record saying they want to play only for Doc the rest of their careers. If Doc is fired, KG and Pierce will retire, and Rondo will ask for a trade.
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.What exactly would a new coach change? Doc is trying a lot of different things, I don't like how he's used Terry but that's not why we're struggling certainly.
But how to maximize your current roster is the job of the coach, if they'd react poorly to his firing that is a consideration.Doc is not getting fired while KG and Pierce are still here. KG, Pierce, and Rondo are all on record saying they want to play only for Doc the rest of their careers. If Doc is fired, KG and Pierce will retire, and Rondo will ask for a trade.
I miss the old days when players played and coaches coached and players did not dictate who would coach the team. So tired of the I am going to take my ball and go home if I don't get my way attitude that pervades all sports. I don't believe Doc should be fired, but I hate this crap about what the players will do if he was to be fired.
Doc is not getting fired while KG and Pierce are still here. KG, Pierce, and Rondo are all on record saying they want to play only for Doc the rest of their careers. If Doc is fired, KG and Pierce will retire, and Rondo will ask for a trade.
I miss the old days when players played and coaches coached and players did not dictate who would coach the team. So tired of the I am going to take my ball and go home if I don't get my way attitude that pervades all sports. I don't believe Doc should be fired, but I hate this crap about what the players will do if he was to be fired.
Doc is not getting fired while KG and Pierce are still here. KG, Pierce, and Rondo are all on record saying they want to play only for Doc the rest of their careers. If Doc is fired, KG and Pierce will retire, and Rondo will ask for a trade.
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
Boy, I wonder what the Celtics will do when Doc "Coach for life" Rivers retires in 30 years and they have to get someone to replace him. What pitiful mortal could ever hope to follow the Alpha and Omega of all coaching glory? Maybe by then they'll have perfected human cloning so there shall never be anyone except a "Doc" coaching Boston's intrepid team!
Our Doc, who art in Boston,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy contract be ever extended,
Thy decisions never be questioned,
on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day another day of not playing Darko.
Forgive us for wondering why you're running Jason Terry off baseline screens.
Lead us not into the temptation of wanting a team that doesn't suck,
But deliver us from the evil of doubting Thine Eternal Perfection,
For Thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory.
For ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Amen.
Mike
The point is, in both cases the Celtics have had two shot clocks, and have taken two shots -- and the 1 possession vs 2 possession is a bizzare artifact of the idea that getting an offensive rebound somehow counts for "extending" the possession rather than generating a new one.Let me reiterate again:
The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.
The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.
It's the all else equal part that I'm finding lacking. In one example the Celtics had 2 possessions. In the second example they had 1 possession.
And as I illustrated above, grabbing an offensive rebound doesn't necessarily lead to better results. In fact, it might lead to a lower FG% if the subsequent shot was missed. But in maintaining the equality of the possessions, it would be reflected just the same as in the scenario A mentioned above, only with a lower FG%, yet with the same PPP.
Make with that what you will. One team having the same PPP as another team, doesn't mean that they're as efficient with their shots, but it does reflect their ability to score the ball given the possession.
Again, this discussion started with the definition of possession, which I find inadequate for the purposes of measuring offensive firepower.
I'm sure there's an argument to be made that PPP indicates how many points you'll expect to get, on average, after the ball changes hands from one team to the other. I don't find this indicative of how good or efficient offense you're running.
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
Boy, I wonder what the Celtics will do when Doc "Coach for life" Rivers retires in 30 years and they have to get someone to replace him. What pitiful mortal could ever hope to follow the Alpha and Omega of all coaching glory? Maybe by then they'll have perfected human cloning so there shall never be anyone except a "Doc" coaching Boston's intrepid team!
Our Doc, who art in Boston,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy contract be ever extended,
Thy decisions never be questioned,
on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day another day of not playing Darko.
Forgive us for wondering why you're running Jason Terry off baseline screens.
Lead us not into the temptation of wanting a team that doesn't suck,
But deliver us from the evil of doubting Thine Eternal Perfection,
For Thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory.
For ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Amen.
Mike
This is just offensive in so many ways. Great 'logic' with your thoughts on Doc. Congrats. Seems like the forum is turning into the espn comments section where no one has to make a reasonable point. They just belch out whatever comes to their mind without thinking it through.
Doc is 375-265 for a 59% win % in the years leading up to this season. We have been in the eastern conf finals 2 out of the last 3 years. I guess winning so much really spoils some people.
If the loses keep piling up and Danny will still not fire Rivers than ownership won't have a choice but to can both Ainge and Rivers. Ainge is playing a dangerous game of not doing what is best for the org vs keeping his personal loyalty in tact.Right, except firing Doc Rivers is not what's "best for the organization". Whoops!
Boy, I wonder what the Celtics will do when Doc "Coach for life" Rivers retires in 30 years and they have to get someone to replace him. What pitiful mortal could ever hope to follow the Alpha and Omega of all coaching glory? Maybe by then they'll have perfected human cloning so there shall never be anyone except a "Doc" coaching Boston's intrepid team!
Our Doc, who art in Boston,
Hallowed be Thy name.
Thy contract be ever extended,
Thy decisions never be questioned,
on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Give us this day another day of not playing Darko.
Forgive us for wondering why you're running Jason Terry off baseline screens.
Lead us not into the temptation of wanting a team that doesn't suck,
But deliver us from the evil of doubting Thine Eternal Perfection,
For Thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory.
For ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Amen.
Mike
This is just offensive in so many ways. Great 'logic' with your thoughts on Doc. Congrats. Seems like the forum is turning into the espn comments section where no one has to make a reasonable point. They just belch out whatever comes to their mind without thinking it through.
Doc is 375-265 for a 59% win % in the years leading up to this season. We have been in the eastern conf finals 2 out of the last 3 years. I guess winning so much really spoils some people.
no, you are quite simply wrong. plenty here have laid out the problems with doc. I did it the other day. There were several bullet points i addressed....but plenty here just want to ignore it or tap dance around the issues with excuses.
watching the Knicks and Spurs tonight, I just can't but see how outclassed this Celtic team is.....
TURRIBLE..... JUST TURRIBLE
You can't get a new possession without possession actually changing hands. Thus an offensive rebound merely extends a possession, it does not create a new one. It is far better to miss ten shots and get ten offensive rebounds then it is to miss ten shots and get zero offensive rebounds. In the first, the other team has no opportunity to score, in the second the other team has ten opportunities to score. Sure your FG% would be the same in each instance, but your offensive efficiency is better in the first, since your offense keeps the other teams defense from doing anything.The point is, in both cases the Celtics have had two shot clocks, and have taken two shots -- and the 1 possession vs 2 possession is a bizzare artifact of the idea that getting an offensive rebound somehow counts for "extending" the possession rather than generating a new one.Let me reiterate again:
The debate here is not what gives you a better overall result. Of course getting more opportunities to score does, and in this sense offensive rebounds are good. But so are regular rebounds and steals.
The discussion is about metrics that accurately reflect how efficienttly you put the ball in the basket, all else equal.
It's the all else equal part that I'm finding lacking. In one example the Celtics had 2 possessions. In the second example they had 1 possession.
And as I illustrated above, grabbing an offensive rebound doesn't necessarily lead to better results. In fact, it might lead to a lower FG% if the subsequent shot was missed. But in maintaining the equality of the possessions, it would be reflected just the same as in the scenario A mentioned above, only with a lower FG%, yet with the same PPP.
Make with that what you will. One team having the same PPP as another team, doesn't mean that they're as efficient with their shots, but it does reflect their ability to score the ball given the possession.
Again, this discussion started with the definition of possession, which I find inadequate for the purposes of measuring offensive firepower.
I'm sure there's an argument to be made that PPP indicates how many points you'll expect to get, on average, after the ball changes hands from one team to the other. I don't find this indicative of how good or efficient offense you're running.
[/quote]You can't get a new possession without possession actually changing hands. Thus an offensive rebound merely extends a possession, it does not create a new one. It is far better to miss ten shots and get ten offensive rebounds then it is to miss ten shots and get zero offensive rebounds. In the first, the other team has no opportunity to score, in the second the other team has ten opportunities to score. Sure your FG% would be the same in each instance, but your offensive efficiency is better in the first, since your offense keeps the other teams defense from doing anything.Quote
watching the Knicks and Spurs tonight, I just can't but see how outclassed this Celtic team is.....
TURRIBLE..... JUST TURRIBLE
doc will right the ship. no worries mate.
he will scream in the players faces and tell his 4 dribble drivers(rondo, green, barbosa, and pierce) to attack the rack. he will tell KG and sully he wants them posting up down low most of the time. he will use terry in a better more efficient way instead of forcing him to play TRAITOR's old role. He will bench guys who do not listen to him immediately.
best coach in da league. bar none.
::)
watching the Knicks and Spurs tonight, I just can't but see how outclassed this Celtic team is.....
TURRIBLE..... JUST TURRIBLE
doc will right the ship. no worries mate.
he will scream in the players faces and tell his 4 dribble drivers(rondo, green, barbosa, and pierce) to attack the rack. he will tell KG and sully he wants them posting up down low most of the time. he will use terry in a better more efficient way instead of forcing him to play TRAITOR's old role. He will bench guys who do not listen to him immediately.
best coach in da league. bar none.
::)
He is modern feel good coach.......it was funny , they were showing an OLD GREG POP interview.... they asked was he happy with the way his team was playing...he frowned even more (than usual) HAPPY!!!! I never happy even when we are playing good... I don't come here to BE HAPPY , we come here to WIN . Happy is a discusting word, and I don't like the word. Its for losers " He was being funny, but he the under lying truth he is more demanding than not ...he'll get on their ---- if they aren't playing
Doc is TOO soft . He is love hippy. peace and all that racket,lets shake hands before we play..... No way, LArry Bird and Parrish hated their opponents and played like it. ....You look your opponent in the eye , and tell them they'll be lucky to survive tonight , your kicking their tail.
Answer me this : Who would we hire in Doc's place?
End of story. We aren't firing Doc Rivers.
I doubt it.
Danny and the owners aren't ones to make "panic" moves.
I doubt it.
Danny and the owners aren't ones to make "panic" moves.
Really? Everyone but Porter and Frank have won COTY? (it's a funny argument to make regardless, given that half of this list is abject failures that I don't want anywhere close to a team I'm rooting for).Answer me this : Who would we hire in Doc's place?
End of story. We aren't firing Doc Rivers.
One of the Van Gundy boys. Stan went to the Finals with a team that had less talent than what Doc has had since KG and Ray showed up and is anybody going to argue that Jeff isn't a proven coach? Even after all the success with Boston the last 6 years, JVG still has a better career winning percentage as a coach than Doc.
Danny Ainge.
Larry Brown, for one last run with this group.
Lawrence Frank.
Nate McMillan.
Avery Johnson.
Flip Saunders.
Jerry Sloan.
Terry Porter.
Now, Ainge wouldn't want to do it and there are, of course, things to pick apart with the rest of that list. But without even looking hard at any promising young NBA assistants or the college ranks, there's 10 guys Boston could probably get to replace Doc if the team wanted to.
Would any of them do a better job than Doc? Who knows? But every one of those guys except Porter and Frank right now have better coaching resumes than Doc did before KG and Ray joined the Celtics.
And let me mention that just as I thought it was stupid for the Lakers to can Mike Brown and the Nets to fire Johnson, it would be ridiculous to fire Doc at this point. But even more ridiculous is the idea that Doc is the ONE TRUE COACH and that there's no one else in the world that could replace "the precious".
Mike
At some point, the patience will end. But, just 30 games (or whatever it is) from being 1 win away from the finals with a beat up team, is nowhere near enough time for them to make a decision. They will let the season play out, and then decide what to do.
Really? Everyone but Porter and Frank have won COTY? (it's a funny argument to make regardless, given that half of this list is abject failures that I don't want anywhere close to a team I'm rooting for).Answer me this : Who would we hire in Doc's place?
End of story. We aren't firing Doc Rivers.
One of the Van Gundy boys. Stan went to the Finals with a team that had less talent than what Doc has had since KG and Ray showed up and is anybody going to argue that Jeff isn't a proven coach? Even after all the success with Boston the last 6 years, JVG still has a better career winning percentage as a coach than Doc.
Danny Ainge.
Larry Brown, for one last run with this group.
Lawrence Frank.
Nate McMillan.
Avery Johnson.
Flip Saunders.
Jerry Sloan.
Terry Porter.
Now, Ainge wouldn't want to do it and there are, of course, things to pick apart with the rest of that list. But without even looking hard at any promising young NBA assistants or the college ranks, there's 10 guys Boston could probably get to replace Doc if the team wanted to.
Would any of them do a better job than Doc? Who knows? But every one of those guys except Porter and Frank right now have better coaching resumes than Doc did before KG and Ray joined the Celtics.
And let me mention that just as I thought it was stupid for the Lakers to can Mike Brown and the Nets to fire Johnson, it would be ridiculous to fire Doc at this point. But even more ridiculous is the idea that Doc is the ONE TRUE COACH and that there's no one else in the world that could replace "the precious".
Mike
At some point, the patience will end. But, just 30 games (or whatever it is) from being 1 win away from the finals with a beat up team, is nowhere near enough time for them to make a decision. They will let the season play out, and then decide what to do.
I agree they will be patient with Doc, but I'll be shocked if there aren't any trades after January 15th. If the Cs falter and go something like 9-14 before the trade deadline, I could envision the brain trust going to Pierce and KG and gauging their willingness to play for a contender this year.
If this team can't make the playoffs, or are barely an 8th seed, I don't see them being a contender next year either. They'd get more value for Pierce and KG at the deadline from a team looking for that one last piece to get over the top than in the summer, where teams would be wondering if they'd get even two years from these players.
I've never been in the Blow It Up camp, but if the Big 2 isn't getting the role player help around them to make this team a contender, either re-shuffle the role players through trades, or move KG/PP for young players and assets. Sitting back is not an option if the Cs are 23-31 at the trade deadline, with 16 of the remaining 28 games on the road.
Really? Everyone but Porter and Frank have won COTY? (it's a funny argument to make regardless, given that half of this list is abject failures that I don't want anywhere close to a team I'm rooting for).Answer me this : Who would we hire in Doc's place?
End of story. We aren't firing Doc Rivers.
One of the Van Gundy boys. Stan went to the Finals with a team that had less talent than what Doc has had since KG and Ray showed up and is anybody going to argue that Jeff isn't a proven coach? Even after all the success with Boston the last 6 years, JVG still has a better career winning percentage as a coach than Doc.
Danny Ainge.
Larry Brown, for one last run with this group.
Lawrence Frank.
Nate McMillan.
Avery Johnson.
Flip Saunders.
Jerry Sloan.
Terry Porter.
Now, Ainge wouldn't want to do it and there are, of course, things to pick apart with the rest of that list. But without even looking hard at any promising young NBA assistants or the college ranks, there's 10 guys Boston could probably get to replace Doc if the team wanted to.
Would any of them do a better job than Doc? Who knows? But every one of those guys except Porter and Frank right now have better coaching resumes than Doc did before KG and Ray joined the Celtics.
And let me mention that just as I thought it was stupid for the Lakers to can Mike Brown and the Nets to fire Johnson, it would be ridiculous to fire Doc at this point. But even more ridiculous is the idea that Doc is the ONE TRUE COACH and that there's no one else in the world that could replace "the precious".
Mike