CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: CelticG1 on January 10, 2013, 01:10:37 PM

Title: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: CelticG1 on January 10, 2013, 01:10:37 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Rookies he didn't play:

Jjj
Etuan Moore
Semih Erden
Luke Harangody
Gabe pruit
Bill Walker

I can't even think of many others right now but I think Doc knows whatvhes doing. Whether he sees it in practice or sees it in garbage time, I think he's honest when he says he will play guys who are ready (and worthy)
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: esel1000 on January 10, 2013, 01:14:44 PM
its not that Doc doesn't play rookies. its that he doesn't play rookies that aren't ready (i.e don't understand defensive rotations, etc). He develops them, and he's absolutely right.

That shows how amazing Sully is. he came in right away, and in Doc's eyes was ready. That shows his immense bball iq.

Bradley was developed. I bet if doc had thrown Avery right in the fire, he wouldn't be as good as he is now. He worked on that defense in the d-league, gave him a base to work with before the bright lights of the NBA.

Props to Doc
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Celtics18 on January 10, 2013, 01:15:24 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Rookies he didn't play:

Jjj
Etuan Moore
Semih Erden
Luke Harangody
Gabe pruit
Bill Walker

I can't even think of many others right now but I think Doc knows whatvhes doing. Whether he sees it in practice or sees it in garbage time, I think he's honest when he says he will play guys who are ready (and worthy)

Semih played 14.4 minutes per game in 37 games in his rookie season as a Celtic. 
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: fairweatherfan on January 10, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
Rookies he didn't play:

Jjj
Etuan Moore
Semih Erden
Luke Harangody
Gabe pruit
Bill Walker

I can't even think of many others right now but I think Doc knows whatvhes doing. Whether he sees it in practice or sees it in garbage time, I think he's honest when he says he will play guys who are ready (and worthy)

JR Giddens even gets benched from the benched list  ;)

I agree though, it's always been overblown.  A lot of people here tend to overrate rookies, sometimes based on some good summer league or preseason games, and so they assume Doc must just be biased against them instead of actually having a good handle on what they can and can't do.

Oddly, the only benched rookie who didn't seem to have a bunch of posters angry at Doc for not playing him was Avery Bradley.  Shows what we all know I suppose.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 10, 2013, 01:22:13 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Rookies he didn't play:

Jjj
Etuan Moore
Semih Erden
Luke Harangody
Gabe pruit
Bill Walker

I can't even think of many others right now but I think Doc knows whatvhes doing. Whether he sees it in practice or sees it in garbage time, I think he's honest when he says he will play guys who are ready (and worthy)

Semih played 14.4 minutes per game in 37 games in his rookie season as a Celtic.

There is a reason Bradley and Sully are in heavy rotation on a contending team. They are good and ready for NBA action...

There is also a reason why none of the players on that list are making any type of positive impact on any NBA team. They aren't very good or NBA worthy.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: CelticG1 on January 10, 2013, 01:29:28 PM
Rookies he didn't play:

Jjj
Etuan Moore
Semih Erden
Luke Harangody
Gabe pruit
Bill Walker

I can't even think of many others right now but I think Doc knows whatvhes doing. Whether he sees it in practice or sees it in garbage time, I think he's honest when he says he will play guys who are ready (and worthy)

JR Giddens even gets benched from the benched list  ;)

I agree though, it's always been overblown.  A lot of people here tend to overrate rookies, sometimes based on some good summer league or preseason games, and so they assume Doc must just be biased against them instead of actually having a good handle on what they can and can't do.

Oddly, the only benched rookie who didn't seem to have a bunch of posters angry at Doc for not playing him was Avery Bradley.  Shows what we all know I suppose.

You know, I was trying to think of his name but kept thinking J.R. Bremer haha
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: CelticG1 on January 10, 2013, 01:33:59 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Rookies he didn't play:

Jjj
Etuan Moore
Semih Erden
Luke Harangody
Gabe pruit
Bill Walker

I can't even think of many others right now but I think Doc knows whatvhes doing. Whether he sees it in practice or sees it in garbage time, I think he's honest when he says he will play guys who are ready (and worthy)

Semih played 14.4 minutes per game in 37 games in his rookie season as a Celtic.

Ha yeah exactly.

And that was with Zero healthy centers on the team
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: SHAQATTACK on January 10, 2013, 01:42:43 PM
I always liked Erden .  He was always game, in there playing with basically one good arm .

Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: MBunge on January 10, 2013, 01:44:27 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?


The complaint really started when Rondo was a rookie and there was about a two month stretch when everyone else in the universe could see Rondo was the best player, yet Doc continued to start Sebastian Telfair, even though Boston was terrible and not making the playoffs no matter what.

I do think the evidence is that Doc doesn't particularly hate rookies more than any other NBA coach, but that Doc is one of those coaches who has "his guys".  Avery and Sully are a great example of that.  There were plenty of times early this season when Sully did not play very well and for much if not most of Avery's rookie season and the start of his second year, he played like hot garbage.  Yet Doc continued to give them opportunities that a guy like E'Twuan Moore never got.

Mike
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: slamtheking on January 10, 2013, 01:49:40 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Nope, don't feel stupid at all.  in fact, I still feel pretty righteous about it.  the thing is, it's not that "Doc doesn't play rookies".  Rondo, BBD, Semih and others in the pre-KG era saw the court in their rookie season.  The TRUE statement is "Doc doesn't play rookies when there's a vet alternative available".  That's a key difference.  have any doubts about that?  take the case of Sully this year.  Ask yourself, what vet can Doc be use behind Bass?   The answer is no one thus Sully has gotten court time.

Same situation applied to Rondo, BBD, Powe, Ryan Gomes, Big Al, Perk, TA, Semih.  All talented young players (not as good as they are now) that didn't see court time as rookies until the vet(s) on the roster were knocked out due to injuries. 

I present this argument every time a similar thread gets started and no one has presented a single example of a vet that Doc sat in favor of a younger player.  The closest was Rondo's rookie season when he started out behind 2nd year player telfair and Telfair played himself onto the bench.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: ScottHow on January 10, 2013, 01:52:31 PM
It's the back up quarter back issue.

Fans always are ready to find the next best young thing and the grass is always greener.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: ejk3489 on January 10, 2013, 02:10:52 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Nope, don't feel stupid at all.  in fact, I still feel pretty righteous about it.  the thing is, it's not that "Doc doesn't play rookies".  Rondo, BBD, Semih and others in the pre-KG era saw the court in their rookie season.  The TRUE statement is "Doc doesn't play rookies when there's a vet alternative available".  That's a key difference.  have any doubts about that?  take the case of Sully this year.  Ask yourself, what vet can Doc be use behind Bass?   The answer is no one thus Sully has gotten court time.

Same situation applied to Rondo, BBD, Powe, Ryan Gomes, Big Al, Perk, TA, Semih.  All talented young players (not as good as they are now) that didn't see court time as rookies until the vet(s) on the roster were knocked out due to injuries. 

I present this argument every time a similar thread gets started and no one has presented a single example of a vet that Doc sat in favor of a younger player.  The closest was Rondo's rookie season when he started out behind 2nd year player telfair and Telfair played himself onto the bench.

I'd say Doc benching Ray Allen in favor of Avery Bradley in the starting line-up last April counts for something. Pretty ballsy coaching move, especially doing it against a respected vet like Ray.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Kane3387 on January 10, 2013, 02:17:52 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Rookies he didn't play:

Jjj
Etuan Moore
Semih Erden
Luke Harangody
Gabe pruit
Bill Walker

I can't even think of many others right now but I think Doc knows whatvhes doing. Whether he sees it in practice or sees it in garbage time, I think he's honest when he says he will play guys who are ready (and worthy)

Semih played 14.4 minutes per game in 37 games in his rookie season as a Celtic.

He was pretty seasoned from playing professionally in Europe.

It is overblown. Most of our picks in the kg era just haven't been that good or just weren't ready to contribute coming out.

Avery was hurt and missed all training camp. He wasn't ready his rookie year as a result. Giddens, walker, Moore, Hudson, Johnson, etc. just weren't that good.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: CelticG1 on January 10, 2013, 02:30:20 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Nope, don't feel stupid at all.  in fact, I still feel pretty righteous about it.  the thing is, it's not that "Doc doesn't play rookies".  Rondo, BBD, Semih and others in the pre-KG era saw the court in their rookie season.  The TRUE statement is "Doc doesn't play rookies when there's a vet alternative available".  That's a key difference.  have any doubts about that?  take the case of Sully this year.  Ask yourself, what vet can Doc be use behind Bass?   The answer is no one thus Sully has gotten court time.

Same situation applied to Rondo, BBD, Powe, Ryan Gomes, Big Al, Perk, TA, Semih.  All talented young players (not as good as they are now) that didn't see court time as rookies until the vet(s) on the roster were knocked out due to injuries. 

I present this argument every time a similar thread gets started and no one has presented a single example of a vet that Doc sat in favor of a younger player.  The closest was Rondo's rookie season when he started out behind 2nd year player telfair and Telfair played himself onto the bench.

Its kind of a joke how you rationalize this.

Who are these miracle coaches that subscribe to your amazing philosophy.

Maybe just name a few. And try and compare the difference without burying out something and not actually proving it.

Jjj did a pretty good job of not getting PT even though no one else played his position on the team
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 02:31:58 PM
The context being missed though is the roster we had during that times. For example, when Walker was here, he needed to play, there was no one else, yet Doc refused to play him. The result? He ran Paul Pierce to the ground, who then ran out of gas during the playoffs... very unavoidable. To add insult to injury, Doc constantly played Scal as a SF too much for anyone's tastes, and he was pretty awful in that position.

Moore should've played a bit more last year too. Dooling wasn't any good for us as a PG. and when Moore got the opportunities, he at least was a bit decent.

You put a vet, who are worse than Walker and Moore, and I'd guarantee you that Doc would've given them playing time.

That's just the way he's wired. Now, if a rookie who's actually good, like Sully and to a lesser degree Baby, he'll play them some. But sometimes he's too stubborn when roster situation dictates he should've used some rookies to fill some roles regardless of their competence.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: CelticG1 on January 10, 2013, 02:39:58 PM
The context being missed though is the roster we had during that times. For example, when Walker was here, he needed to play, there was no one else, yet Doc refused to play him. The result? He ran Paul Pierce to the ground, who then ran out of gas during the playoffs... very unavoidable. To add insult to injury, Doc constantly played Scal as a SF too much for anyone's tastes, and he was pretty awful in that position.

Moore should've played a bit more last year too. Dooling wasn't any good for us as a PG. and when Moore got the opportunities, he at least was a bit decent.

You put a vet, who are worse than Walker and Moore, and I'd guarantee you that Doc would've given them playing time.

That's just the way he's wired. Now, if a rookie who's actually good, like Sully and to a lesser degree Baby, he'll play them some. But sometimes he's too stubborn when roster situation dictates he should've used some rookies to fill some roles regardless of their competence.

I think this is the definition of nit picking to be honest.

He played his all stars big minutes which is how you win in this league and how you go far in the playoffs.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 02:42:52 PM
The context being missed though is the roster we had during that times. For example, when Walker was here, he needed to play, there was no one else, yet Doc refused to play him. The result? He ran Paul Pierce to the ground, who then ran out of gas during the playoffs... very unavoidable. To add insult to injury, Doc constantly played Scal as a SF too much for anyone's tastes, and he was pretty awful in that position.

Moore should've played a bit more last year too. Dooling wasn't any good for us as a PG. and when Moore got the opportunities, he at least was a bit decent.

You put a vet, who are worse than Walker and Moore, and I'd guarantee you that Doc would've given them playing time.

That's just the way he's wired. Now, if a rookie who's actually good, like Sully and to a lesser degree Baby, he'll play them some. But sometimes he's too stubborn when roster situation dictates he should've used some rookies to fill some roles regardless of their competence.

I think this is the definition of nit picking to be honest.

He played his all stars big minutes which is how you win in this league and how you go far in the playoffs.

Am I talking about the playoffs? I'm talking about the regular season. In April, he was playing Pierce about 40 minutes a game! That's just nuts.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: jbaerg on January 10, 2013, 02:46:02 PM
Gody was good against the Pistons for that one game ;)
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Fafnir on January 10, 2013, 02:48:36 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

Doc clearly was gunning for the 1 or 2 seed that season even once KG went down so he rode Pierce more once that happened.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 02:56:23 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

We could've lost all the games in that 40 minute month, and still make the playoffs as a 4th seed. It was completely unnecessary. It was unnecessary to play him that much to even win games, just like it's been unnecessary for Doc to play Rondo has much as he's done this year. It's counter intuitive, but energy plays into it. Pierce for example, was often out of gas in 4th quarters of many of those games, so even with the intent of winning games it was hurting us.

But sorry, I meant March indeed... April just had a few games. ESPN's new game log format is idiotic.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: ScottHow on January 10, 2013, 02:58:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgRU50jOE0Y

Semih on my way!

Loved that guy
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Fafnir on January 10, 2013, 03:00:53 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

We could've lost all the games in that 40 minute month, and still make the playoffs as a 4th seed. It was completely unnecessary. It was unnecessary to play him that much to even win games, just like it's been unnecessary for Doc to play Rondo has much as he's done this year. It's counter intuitive, but energy plays into it. Pierce for example, was often out of gas in 4th quarters of many of those games, so even with the intent of winning games it was hurting us.

But sorry, I meant March indeed... April just had a few games. ESPN's new game log format is idiotic.
BasketballReference ftw.

Rondo has played the same minutes for the past four years. I think he's a bit better he has to play a few less, but its what it is.

I just don't think 3 extra minutes per game for two months matters that much. If anything KG being out is what wore on the team, EVERYONE had to do more in the minutes they were out there. Not to mention that Powe/BBD/etc were all hurt and out leaving us with no size to boot.

Walker wasn't worth minutes in the rotation and Doc wasn't extending Pierce all that much beyond his normal range for that year. Really a non-issue.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: ScottHow on January 10, 2013, 03:04:16 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

We could've lost all the games in that 40 minute month, and still make the playoffs as a 4th seed. It was completely unnecessary. It was unnecessary to play him that much to even win games, just like it's been unnecessary for Doc to play Rondo has much as he's done this year. It's counter intuitive, but energy plays into it. Pierce for example, was often out of gas in 4th quarters of many of those games, so even with the intent of winning games it was hurting us.

But sorry, I meant March indeed... April just had a few games. ESPN's new game log format is idiotic.
BasketballReference ftw.

Rondo has played the same minutes for the past four years. I think he's a bit better he has to play a few less, but its what it is.

I just don't think 3 extra minutes per game for two months matters that much. If anything KG being out is what wore on the team, EVERYONE had to do more in the minutes they were out there. Not to mention that Powe/BBD/etc were all hurt and out leaving us with no size to boot.

Walker wasn't worth minutes in the rotation and Doc wasn't extending Pierce all that much beyond his normal range for that year. Really a non-issue.

Yea, what really killed that team was the fact we had to lean on Mikki Moore for big minutes. *puke*
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: CelticG1 on January 10, 2013, 03:09:43 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

We could've lost all the games in that 40 minute month, and still make the playoffs as a 4th seed. It was completely unnecessary. It was unnecessary to play him that much to even win games, just like it's been unnecessary for Doc to play Rondo has much as he's done this year. It's counter intuitive, but energy plays into it. Pierce for example, was often out of gas in 4th quarters of many of those games, so even with the intent of winning games it was hurting us.

But sorry, I meant March indeed... April just had a few games. ESPN's new game log format is idiotic.
BasketballReference ftw.

Rondo has played the same minutes for the past four years. I think he's a bit better he has to play a few less, but its what it is.

I just don't think 3 extra minutes per game for two months matters that much. If anything KG being out is what wore on the team, EVERYONE had to do more in the minutes they were out there. Not to mention that Powe/BBD/etc were all hurt and out leaving us with no size to boot.

Walker wasn't worth minutes in the rotation and Doc wasn't extending Pierce all that much beyond his normal range for that year. Really a non-issue.

Yeah I just don't get the fascination of playingplayers just because they wear the uniform.

Again I think this is just nitpicking.

To say we would have gone further in the playoffs getting the 4th seed is a huge stretch.

Btw Rondo should be playing huge minutes
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 03:10:59 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

We could've lost all the games in that 40 minute month, and still make the playoffs as a 4th seed. It was completely unnecessary. It was unnecessary to play him that much to even win games, just like it's been unnecessary for Doc to play Rondo has much as he's done this year. It's counter intuitive, but energy plays into it. Pierce for example, was often out of gas in 4th quarters of many of those games, so even with the intent of winning games it was hurting us.

But sorry, I meant March indeed... April just had a few games. ESPN's new game log format is idiotic.
BasketballReference ftw.

Rondo has played the same minutes for the past four years. I think he's a bit better he has to play a few less, but its what it is.

I just don't think 3 extra minutes per game for two months matters that much. If anything KG being out is what wore on the team, EVERYONE had to do more in the minutes they were out there. Not to mention that Powe/BBD/etc were all hurt and out leaving us with no size to boot.

Walker wasn't worth minutes in the rotation and Doc wasn't extending Pierce all that much beyond his normal range for that year. Really a non-issue.

Which was disproved by the performance in the playoffs... really an issue. The Rondo comment was not about his energy per se, he's young and has good stamina, but about the idea that Doc needs to play him that much in order to win during the regular season.

Even with all those problems, we took the eventual East Champions to seven games.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 03:12:32 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

We could've lost all the games in that 40 minute month, and still make the playoffs as a 4th seed. It was completely unnecessary. It was unnecessary to play him that much to even win games, just like it's been unnecessary for Doc to play Rondo has much as he's done this year. It's counter intuitive, but energy plays into it. Pierce for example, was often out of gas in 4th quarters of many of those games, so even with the intent of winning games it was hurting us.

But sorry, I meant March indeed... April just had a few games. ESPN's new game log format is idiotic.
BasketballReference ftw.

Rondo has played the same minutes for the past four years. I think he's a bit better he has to play a few less, but its what it is.

I just don't think 3 extra minutes per game for two months matters that much. If anything KG being out is what wore on the team, EVERYONE had to do more in the minutes they were out there. Not to mention that Powe/BBD/etc were all hurt and out leaving us with no size to boot.

Walker wasn't worth minutes in the rotation and Doc wasn't extending Pierce all that much beyond his normal range for that year. Really a non-issue.

Yeah I just don't get the fascination of playingplayers just because they wear the uniform.

Again I think this is just nitpicking.

To say we would have gone further in the playoffs getting the 4th seed is a huge stretch.

Btw Rondo should be playing huge minutes

How is it a huge stretch when you took the eventual East Champions to seven games? There were only 3 teams of worth that year, all with their flaws.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Fafnir on January 10, 2013, 03:17:29 PM
What was disproved by Pierce's performance in the playoffs? Go look at the game logs and point out where Pierce was a different player than he was in the regular season?

He had a solid playoffs very similar to 2007-2008, if you want to talk about him being tired then you should play the Bulls/C's collectively for having so many OTs.

Pierce had a good series against the Bulls and was doing well against Orlando until game 6/7. You really think 3 MPG in Feb/March mattered more than big minutes in the two weeks before and multiple OT games?

Or the fact that Orlando got more locked in defensively when it became do or die for them? In the end its definitely micromanaging the team wanting to believe it was that close to the tipping point.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 03:22:01 PM
What was disproved by Pierce's performance in the playoffs?

He had a solid playoffs, if you want to talk about him being tired then you should play the Bulls/C's collectively for having so many OTs.

Pierce had a good series against the Bulls and was doing well against Orlando until game 6/7. You really think 3 MPG in Feb/March mattered more than big minutes in the two weeks before and multiple OT games?

Or the fact that Orlando got more locked in defensively when it became do or die for them?

Yes it makes a difference, certainly not at the level of those OT games, but it does make a difference, particularly with Pierce who'd been battling some knee problems himself.

It all adds up, and it's disingenuous to believe that it doesn't make a difference. Hell, let's stop giving Pop that much credit for being a good coach for conserving his players throughout the year... it's a non-issue after all.

Fact is, regardless of what you feel the difference would be, it was completely unnecessary to play Pierce that much during the season, and a poor decision to do so. Even if Pierce didn't ran out of gas, it would still make it a poor decision, there was no need for it... that he did end up running out of gas, just adds circumstantial evidence my way at the very least.

Doc himself said throughout the season that he had play Pierce less, but for some reason he kept failing at it his promise.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Fafnir on January 10, 2013, 03:28:02 PM
it was completely unnecessary to play Pierce that much during the season, and a poor decision to do so.
Only if you don't value winning games, which you don't so that's where we are.

Doc was playing to win that year, he's since adjusted his handling of Pierce somewhat and especially KG as they've gotten even older.

You really think we go farther than we did in 2008-2009 if Pierce played 3 minutes less per game for two months? Doc did a magnificent coaching job that season to get where we did.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Roy H. on January 10, 2013, 03:30:46 PM
I think Doc plays the guys he thinks will help the team win games.

I think he's poor at "force feeding" rookies minutes, although in fairness not a lot of young guys he sat have gone on to do anything elsewhere.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 03:31:58 PM
it was completely unnecessary to play Pierce that much during the season, and a poor decision to do so.
Only if you don't value winning games, which you don't so that's where we are.

Doc was playing to win that year, he's since adjusted his handling of Pierce somewhat and especially KG as they've gotten even older.

You really think we go farther than we did in 2008-2009 if Pierce played 3 minutes less per game for two months? Doc did a magnificent coaching job that season to get where we did.

I have no problem with playing to win, I don't agree with his strategy to play Pierce that much throught the season, particularly with the huge cushion we had built for ourselves early in the season... and for that matter, do you believe that playing Pierce 3 minutes less per game during those months would've altered in any shape or form the standings? Maybe we fall to 3rd seed, "big deal". I'm not advocating losing games during the season, but I don't believe Pierce needed to play those minutes to accomplish getting the wins we got.

In fact, giving Pierce more rests in game would've allowed us to win more potentially, particularly when Pierce looked so out of gas, during the season, in 4th quarters... even back then there were signs of Pierce playing too many minutes. It's really was a warrior's effort what he did in the post season, too bad it fell short.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Chris on January 10, 2013, 03:34:49 PM
I think Doc plays the guys he thinks will help the team win games.

I think he's poor at "force feeding" rookies minutes, although in fairness not a lot of young guys he sat have gone on to do anything elsewhere.

I agree with this.  Although I will add another layer.  I think he goes by the philosophy that forcefeeding minutes to guys who aren't ready is more likely to stunt their growth than help it.

I think, for example, he genuinely felt that if he put Bradley out there before he was ready, it would have actually slowed down his development, rather than speeding it up.  Whether he is right or not, who knows, but I think he has had a lot of success with that philosophy.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Fafnir on January 10, 2013, 03:40:12 PM
I think Doc plays the guys he thinks will help the team win games.

I think he's poor at "force feeding" rookies minutes, although in fairness not a lot of young guys he sat have gone on to do anything elsewhere.

I agree with this.  Although I will add another layer.  I think he goes by the philosophy that forcefeeding minutes to guys who aren't ready is more likely to stunt their growth than help it.

I think, for example, he genuinely felt that if he put Bradley out there before he was ready, it would have actually slowed down his development, rather than speeding it up.  Whether he is right or not, who knows, but I think he has had a lot of success with that philosophy.
I 100% agree with this, especially given what Doc has said about Gerald Green. He gave an interview about how winning the dunk competition was the worst thing to happen for Gerald.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Chris on January 10, 2013, 03:43:31 PM
I think Doc plays the guys he thinks will help the team win games.

I think he's poor at "force feeding" rookies minutes, although in fairness not a lot of young guys he sat have gone on to do anything elsewhere.

I agree with this.  Although I will add another layer.  I think he goes by the philosophy that forcefeeding minutes to guys who aren't ready is more likely to stunt their growth than help it.

I think, for example, he genuinely felt that if he put Bradley out there before he was ready, it would have actually slowed down his development, rather than speeding it up.  Whether he is right or not, who knows, but I think he has had a lot of success with that philosophy.
I 100% agree with this, especially given what Doc has said about Gerald Green. He gave an interview about how winning the dunk competition was the worst thing to happen for Gerald.

I also heard rumors (unsubstantiated, but they passed the smell test) that he was not thrilled to be playing him when he did, but was told to basically showcase him.  He thought playing him was basically just reinforcing the bad habits they were trying to break him of in practice. 
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BballTim on January 10, 2013, 04:41:53 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

Doc clearly was gunning for the 1 or 2 seed that season even once KG went down so he rode Pierce more once that happened.

  One of the reason Paul's minutes went up is that TA was injured for most of February and March that year.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: LooseCannon on January 10, 2013, 04:56:26 PM
I think Doc plays the guys he thinks will help the team win games.

I think he's poor at "force feeding" rookies minutes, although in fairness not a lot of young guys he sat have gone on to do anything elsewhere.

I agree with this.  Although I will add another layer.  I think he goes by the philosophy that forcefeeding minutes to guys who aren't ready is more likely to stunt their growth than help it.

I think this is the correct philosophy to have.  I'd rather have a guy like Fab Melo stay too long in the D-League rather than have him brought up and given minutes too soon.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 05:12:48 PM
Moore had one good game that I recall (Magic game), beyond that he didnt' do much. Meanwhile he was a much worse defender than Dooling which is why Dooling got the nod.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with Pierce though. While I wasn't happy with the backup SF situation in 08-09 Doc didn't start riding Pierce till KG was hurt. At that point his minutes went to 40 MPG for Feb/March. In April he scaled them back down again as we were prepping for the playoffs.

Doc clearly was gunning for the 1 or 2 seed that season even once KG went down so he rode Pierce more once that happened.

  One of the reason Paul's minutes went up is that TA was injured for most of February and March that year.

That and Scal was out with his concussion and what not. We had injuries everywhere, we had no one but Walker and Giddens pretty much. So you pick one, Walker, and you play him a few minutes a game. Nothing lost. At the worst, give him enough playing time to prepare him as possible for the playoffs in the case he's needed.

That's the roster he had, and the goal was a championship. It's absurd to put that to put that responsibility on the rook, but it's what we had.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BballTim on January 10, 2013, 05:30:49 PM
I think Doc plays the guys he thinks will help the team win games.

I think he's poor at "force feeding" rookies minutes, although in fairness not a lot of young guys he sat have gone on to do anything elsewhere.

I agree with this.  Although I will add another layer.  I think he goes by the philosophy that forcefeeding minutes to guys who aren't ready is more likely to stunt their growth than help it.

I think, for example, he genuinely felt that if he put Bradley out there before he was ready, it would have actually slowed down his development, rather than speeding it up.  Whether he is right or not, who knows, but I think he has had a lot of success with that philosophy.

  One thing that kind of works against Doc is his playing rookies in situations where they'll be relatively successful. It makes them look like they're more ready than they are. I remember the "Doc doesn't play young guys" complaint about either Powe or Baby with the stats that the player produced well when given minutes. The reality of the situation was that when we had matchups that were especially bad for the player Doc wouldn't use him, so people saw him succeed but didn't see him struggle much.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: satch on January 10, 2013, 05:34:12 PM
doc would never played Avery last year if not for several injuries to other players....same with rondo during his early years. doc stumbled into these decisions. i'm afraid there is a pay day coming for doc's stubborn BS concerning developing young players. pp is getting way to many minutes...
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Chris on January 10, 2013, 05:34:32 PM
I think Doc plays the guys he thinks will help the team win games.

I think he's poor at "force feeding" rookies minutes, although in fairness not a lot of young guys he sat have gone on to do anything elsewhere.

I agree with this.  Although I will add another layer.  I think he goes by the philosophy that forcefeeding minutes to guys who aren't ready is more likely to stunt their growth than help it.

I think, for example, he genuinely felt that if he put Bradley out there before he was ready, it would have actually slowed down his development, rather than speeding it up.  Whether he is right or not, who knows, but I think he has had a lot of success with that philosophy.

  One thing that kind of works against Doc is his playing rookies in situations where they'll be relatively successful. It makes them look like they're more ready than they are. I remember the "Doc doesn't play young guys" complaint about either Powe or Baby with the stats that the player produced well when given minutes. The reality of the situation was that when we had matchups that were especially bad for the player Doc wouldn't use him, so people saw him succeed but didn't see him struggle much.

Yeah, it really does play against him.  And unfortunately, it is an argument that cannot be won.

Whenever players sit on the bench, and the when they get on the court play well, there is no way to prove whether they are playing well now, because they are ready, and if they had played earlier, they would not have played well, or whether they were always ready, and Doc just didn't play them.

That is why whenever this topic comes up, it drives me nuts, because it is an impossible argument.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 10, 2013, 05:37:05 PM
doc would never played Avery last year if not for several injuries to other players....same with rondo during his early years. doc stumbled into these decisions. i'm afraid there is a pay day coming for doc's stubborn BS concerning developing young players. pp is getting way to many minutes...

33 minutes a game sounds about right, Doc is not over playing Pierce.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: nickagneta on January 10, 2013, 05:51:00 PM
I think Doc plays the guys he thinks will help the team win games.

I think he's poor at "force feeding" rookies minutes, although in fairness not a lot of young guys he sat have gone on to do anything elsewhere.
Doc isn't good at "force feeding" anyone minutes.

Simple fact is when healthy, Doc plays the players playing their best. When not healthy Doc plays players he has available.

I really do not think this is an uncommon trait amongst coaches trying to win championships. Their job is to win games, playoff series and rings, not develop young players quickly by "force feeding" them minutes they haven't earned.

There's just not a lot of rookies from championship caliber teams that were not given playing time from that championship that went on somewhere else and became really good. Pop doesn't have it happen to him. Same for Doc. Same for Phil Jackson. Same for Pat Riley. Same for most coaches of championship caliber teams.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Yogi on January 10, 2013, 05:58:05 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?

I mean look at AB and Sully right now, could he of brought AB and is bringing Sully along any better?

Nope, don't feel stupid at all.  in fact, I still feel pretty righteous about it.  the thing is, it's not that "Doc doesn't play rookies".  Rondo, BBD, Semih and others in the pre-KG era saw the court in their rookie season.  The TRUE statement is "Doc doesn't play rookies when there's a vet alternative available".  That's a key difference.  have any doubts about that?  take the case of Sully this year.  Ask yourself, what vet can Doc be use behind Bass?   The answer is no one thus Sully has gotten court time.

Same situation applied to Rondo, BBD, Powe, Ryan Gomes, Big Al, Perk, TA, Semih.  All talented young players (not as good as they are now) that didn't see court time as rookies until the vet(s) on the roster were knocked out due to injuries. 

I present this argument every time a similar thread gets started and no one has presented a single example of a vet that Doc sat in favor of a younger player.  The closest was Rondo's rookie season when he started out behind 2nd year player telfair and Telfair played himself onto the bench.

   This is also not true. In 2007, Perk and Big Al started over Gomes, Ratliff, Scal, Olowokandi.  In 2008 Baby, Perk and Powe played over Scalabrine, Pollard and Brown.  Last year, he did start Avery Bradley in his second year over some HOF that wore 20.  He began this year starting Sullinger over Bass, Collins, Wilcox, Darko.  Is that enough?
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: LooseCannon on January 10, 2013, 05:59:16 PM
There are some bad teams out there with immature locker room cultures because a bunch of young players were given automatic minutes because of where they were drafted.  Doc may make some players resentful of lack of playing time, but he can't be accused of building up the detrimental sense of entitlement that some young players have.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Atzar on January 10, 2013, 06:01:31 PM
doc would never played Avery last year if not for several injuries to other players....same with rondo during his early years. doc stumbled into these decisions. i'm afraid there is a pay day coming for doc's stubborn BS concerning developing young players. pp is getting way to many minutes...

There's some revisionist history here.  Rondo averaged 23.5 minutes per game across 78 games in his rookie year.  He certainly played early.  As for Bradley, Doc tried playing him last year before his breakout.  It resulted in a bunch of "Bradley = Garbage" threads, because frankly the kid sucked before he started figuring things out. 

Until that game against Orlando where Bradley humiliated Jameer Nelson, nothing had happened to give Doc (or anybody) confidence that Bradley would produce given extended minutes.  It's a credit to the kid for treating his first real opportunity like it was a game 7.  That more than anything was what earned him the team's trust and, ultimately, brought him out of his shell.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: cman88 on January 10, 2013, 06:08:54 PM
its also something to note WHERE the celtics have been drafting in the KG era...which is low 20's....generally you dont see many Rookie's playing a key role to a championship contendor.


luckily Ainge has been able to find some gems in that early 20's area..(most recently Bradley, Sullinger)who can help us


Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: nickagneta on January 10, 2013, 08:46:03 PM
There are some bad teams out there with immature locker room cultures because a bunch of young players were given automatic minutes because of where they were drafted.  Doc may make some players resentful of lack of playing time, but he can't be accused of building up the detrimental sense of entitlement that some young players have.
TP...excellent observation.
Title: Re: Doc "not playing rookies"
Post by: Bankshot on January 10, 2013, 09:16:51 PM
Do people kind of feel stupid saying this?


The complaint really started when Rondo was a rookie and there was about a two month stretch when everyone else in the universe could see Rondo was the best player, yet Doc continued to start Sebastian Telfair, even though Boston was terrible and not making the playoffs no matter what.

I do think the evidence is that Doc doesn't particularly hate rookies more than any other NBA coach, but that Doc is one of those coaches who has "his guys".  Avery and Sully are a great example of that.  There were plenty of times early this season when Sully did not play very well and for much if not most of Avery's rookie season and the start of his second year, he played like hot garbage.  Yet Doc continued to give them opportunities that a guy like E'Twuan Moore never got.

Mike

Actually it started with Ryan Gomes.