Doc has passed the threshold

[Edgar]

I will give Doc Rivers a pass the momment this team win a visiting game.

[reggie35]

Just for the sake of keeping it real for accuracy, I thought I'd throw this in:

- Doc Rivers record during the regular season is 339-328 for a winning percentage of .508, so I guess that makes him better than average

Winning percentage certainly isn't the be all and end all, either in the regular season or post-season.  I'm assuming nick's post meant to convey that idea, but to the extent it didn't, it's a wrong-minded argument.

K.C. Jones -- never the world's best coach, by any stretch of the imagination -- has a .643 winning percentage in the regular season, and a .570 winning percentage in the playoffs.  That puts him above Jerry Sloan and Larry Brown on both accounts, and ahead of Pat Riley in terms of regular season win percentage.   

However, that doesn't mean a coach's win/loss record, especially in the playoffs, is irrelevant.  If a coach's team continually struggles in the playoffs against equal or lesser teams, or if he repeats the same mistakes repeatedly lessening his team's chances of winning, that could very well be reflected in a poor win/loss record.

You took the words out of my mouth. Percentages are not the be all and end all. In some instances, a coach can have a losing percentage in a season but still exceed expectations.

There's some who would say that, with the roster the celtics have, they should coast through the playoffs and come close to winning it all. If they don't do that, people look at the coach and say he didn't meet expectations: bad job. It's why Doc didn't win Coach of the Year even though they won 66 games. People said with that roster they should win 66 games.

In the east, you'd have to point to Mo Cheeks as the coach with the team that really exceeded expectations. In the case of Boston and Detroit, I'd say it's more the case of a coach not getting in the way (although Doc has tried his best). Out west, has anyone really exceeded expectations? It's hard to say. You might make the case that the Spurs have since they had to beat Charlotte without the benefit of home court advantage (but then again they are the defending champs anything less is disappointing). In my mind, the Lakers have too, because Gasol has gone from a big softy to being actually useful. Does Phil Jackson get credit for that?

For me the threshold was the ECF. As long as Doc doesn't embarrass himself in this round, I think he's earned the right to keep his job, despite the fact that I don't think he can coach a team to the championship.

[Brickowski]

Yes, agree.  Unless they get swept badly by the Pistons, Rivers' job is safe. It shouldn't be, but it is.

[nickagneta]

Just for the sake of keeping it real for accuracy, I thought I'd throw this in:

- Doc Rivers record during the regular season is 339-328 for a winning percentage of .508, so I guess that makes him better than average

Winning percentage certainly isn't the be all and end all, either in the regular season or post-season.  I'm assuming nick's post meant to convey that idea, but to the extent it didn't, it's a wrong-minded argument.

K.C. Jones -- never the world's best coach, by any stretch of the imagination -- has a .643 winning percentage in the regular season, and a .570 winning percentage in the playoffs.  That puts him above Jerry Sloan and Larry Brown on both accounts, and ahead of Pat Riley in terms of regular season win percentage.   

However, that doesn't mean a coach's win/loss record, especially in the playoffs, is irrelevant.  If a coach's team continually struggles in the playoffs against equal or lesser teams, or if he repeats the same mistakes repeatedly lessening his team's chances of winning, that could very well be reflected in a poor win/loss record.

Actually what I was trying to convey was the fact that Bahku said that Doc had an overall winning percentage of .444 and hence that made him a less than average coach.

Bahku had his facts wrong. I was just trying to make things a bit more accurate for people.

As for my list of winning percentages, what I was trying to convey there is that winning percentage really isn't a gauge for judging how bad a coach is as it is also not an indicator of how good a coach is. It is a double edge sword.

Many people differ to Phil Jackson's record as proof of what a great coach he is. But isn't it pretty easy to have a record as good as he has when you constantly put yourself into a position to coach the best player in the league along another star player. Championships are pretty easy to come by when you're coaching 2 of the best 5 players in the league on the same team for 11 straight years.

Roy's example with K C Jones proves that. Jones had exceptional talent and won two championships. Is he a great coach? Is Phil Jackson a great coach, probably, but when you leave a franchise just when you know it's talent is leaving that says to me that that coach is afraid he can't be successful unless he has a boatload of talent. He's done it twice already and when Kobe decides to leave LA he'll do it again.

To me that makes him a smart man, not necessarily a great coach.

That said about the good, there is also the bad. I think there have probably been a ton of good coaches that unfortunately started with seriously bad teams. No amount of great coaching is going to overcome the fact that a team has almost no talent or extremely young talent. Hence they would have bad winning percentages.

A good example is Dick Motta. Dick was an exceptional coach and unfortunately he decided to coach the Dallas Mavericks in their infancy. Because of this Dick had a lot of bad years with bad records and bad talent. But then Mark Aguirre, Rolando Blackman, Dale Ellis, Roy Tarpley, Otis Smith and others came along and Dick developed them and made Dallas a viable basketball franchise. The Mavs owe everything they are today to Dick Motta's coaching.

But Dick's winning percentages aren't great. They are actually worse than Doc's. But he was a fabulous coach.

So where does this leave us regarding just how good Doc is compared to his record?

Well, his first year coaching he took as untalented team as there ever could be, with their best player being(yikes) Darrell Armstrong, to a 41-41 record. The next year Orlando added Tracy McGrady and Grant Hill. But Hill was injured all season and McGrady was the only real addition to a team that Doc coached up to play way over their heads. When there was a bit of a letdown from the other players, McGrady himself couldn't overcome the team's deficiencies. The next few years he had McGrady and some nice pieces and got to the playoffs but went nowhere and was soon gone.

Doc then came to Boston and coached a fairly bad team with Paul Pierce to an Atlantic Division championship and disappointment in the playoffs. But Doc took the job knowing Danny was going to blow up the team and start anew with young talent. Like Dick Motta he decided to stick around and coach youngsters until things turned around. Two horrible years followed.

But in those years his players always played hard, never gave up on him and were in virtually every game they played. I think that speaks volumes for the man as a coach. He has also turned some good young talent into possible stars and some mediocre talent into good NBA players. Mike Miller, Pat Garrity, Bo Outlaw, Al Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins, Rajon Rondo, Leon Powe, Ryan Gomes and maybe soon to be Glen Davis have flourished and developed under Doc. All players that entered the league with large question marks that developed and prospered under Doc.

Let's not forget that the year before Ben Wallace went to Detroit and became Ben Wallace he had an excellent developmental year the year before where Detroit fell in love with him. Where? In Orlando under Doc Rivers.

How many coaches currently coaching can make the claim that they have developed that much lower 1st round to 2nd round to undrafted players into real, honest to goodness NBA players and in Big Al and Rondo's case maybe stars?

There is so much more that goes into NBA head coaching that almost everyone here hasn't got a clue about. Not a single iota of knowledge about. But we roast the heck out of Doc and call him a bad or less than good coach because his record isn't good and because we question his substitutions and rotations. But that end of being a good or great NBA coach is such a small part of coaching in the NBA that it's not funny.

Roy consistently says Doc is a bad coach because he doesn't put his players in positions to succeed.

But he has them now in a position to win the ECF. Isn't that putting them in a position to succeed?

Many questioned Doc's ability to coach in the playoffs because he never went past the first round.

Yet he has the team playing in the ECF and has won two game sevens in a row.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Winning in this league is all about the players playing. Coaching in game has very little to do with it.

I have also said that we needed to give Doc a chance and support him until he blows it. That hasn't happened yet. And yet here we are the morning before the ECF begins and people are calling for Doc's ouster even though the Celtics still probably have the best chance of winning the championship due to their home court advantage.

Maybe I'm just way too supportive of anyone who wears Green. Maybe I'm just a little too much of a glass half filled type of guy. Maybe my sense of reality is severely warped. Maybe I drink too much.

Or maybe I'm right and Doc deserves a lot more kudos than he gets and a lot less criticism and derision than he receives.

(Let the insults about me being warped or drunk begin.)

[Roy Hobbs]

Roy consistently says Doc is a bad coach because he doesn't put his players in positions to succeed.

But he has them now in a position to win the ECF. Isn't that putting them in a position to succeed?

Doc made winning in both the first and second round harder than it needed to be, in part because of his idiotic rotations. 

I harp on Doc for not putting his players in the *best* position to succeed, and I don't think he does that.  Doc coached fairly well in Games 5 and 7, but overall, he hasn't been putting on a coaching clinic this post-season. 

I mean, I think you indicated that 93% of this team's success or failure is due to reasons other than coaching.  If that's so, how can you indicate that Doc's 8-6 record is indicative of him putting his team in a position to win?  Isn't it just as likely that the other 93% is responsible, under your logic?

Wins or losses are not necessarily a product of good coaching.  I thought just about everyone was on board with that concept, but now we're hearing the twisted logic that "Since Doc made it to the Eastern Conference Finals, he must be a good coach".  If you're going to give Doc much of the credit for reaching the ECF, then give him much of the blame for losing six games to inferior teams, as well.

[nickagneta]

Roy consistently says Doc is a bad coach because he doesn't put his players in positions to succeed.

But he has them now in a position to win the ECF. Isn't that putting them in a position to succeed?

Doc made winning in both the first and second round harder than it needed to be, in part because of his idiotic rotations. 

I harp on Doc for not putting his players in the *best* position to succeed, and I don't think he does that.  Doc coached fairly well in Games 5 and 7, but overall, he hasn't been putting on a coaching clinic this post-season. 

I mean, I think you indicated that 93% of this team's success or failure is due to reasons other than coaching.  If that's so, how can you indicate that Doc's 8-6 record is indicative of him putting his team in a position to win?  Isn't it just as likely that the other 93% is responsible, under your logic?

Wins or losses are not necessarily a product of good coaching.  I thought just about everyone was on board with that concept, but now we're hearing the twisted logic that "Since Doc made it to the Eastern Conference Finals, he must be a good coach".  If you're going to give Doc much of the credit for reaching the ECF, then give him much of the blame for losing six games to inferior teams, as well.

[nickagneta]

Roy consistently says Doc is a bad coach because he doesn't put his players in positions to succeed.

But he has them now in a position to win the ECF. Isn't that putting them in a position to succeed?

Doc made winning in both the first and second round harder than it needed to be, in part because of his idiotic rotations. 

I harp on Doc for not putting his players in the *best* position to succeed, and I don't think he does that.  Doc coached fairly well in Games 5 and 7, but overall, he hasn't been putting on a coaching clinic this post-season. 

I mean, I think you indicated that 93% of this team's success or failure is due to reasons other than coaching.  If that's so, how can you indicate that Doc's 8-6 record is indicative of him putting his team in a position to win?  Isn't it just as likely that the other 93% is responsible, under your logic?

Wins or losses are not necessarily a product of good coaching.  I thought just about everyone was on board with that concept, but now we're hearing the twisted logic that "Since Doc made it to the Eastern Conference Finals, he must be a good coach".  If you're going to give Doc much of the credit for reaching the ECF, then give him much of the blame for losing six games to inferior teams, as well.

First off I never in that entire rambling said anywhere that Doc was a good coach. Please find it.

I pointed out some of the good things he has done and I pointed out why his record might be what it is.

I pointed out that he probably deserves more credit than he is given and deserves less of the not so nice stuff that is written here.

I never said he was a good coach.

I think there are areas of his coaching where he might be the best in the league at. I think there are certain aspects to his coaching that suck. I have always maintained this.

If people can say that Doc is a bad coach because he never got past the first round( a staple in the Doc Bashers reasons why Doc sucks), then why is it not logical to assume that now that he made it past the first round that he is now a good coach?

And where so many of the Doc Bashers err is that when they look at the playoffs the see 6 losses and blame Doc for every one. He is responsible for that. But as I said in my 93% comment, he is a whole lot less responsible for it than others.

Conversely, he is only responsible for 7% of their wins. I truly believe that.

But putting a team in a position to win a championship goes so much further beyond whether Eddie House plays or Sam Cassell plays it's not funny.

Are the Celtics in their position if Doc doesn't get the idea of team unity established from the beginning?

Are the Celtics in their position if Doc doesn't hire Tom Thibodeau who can do something better than Doc, which is teach defense?

Are the Celtics in their position if Doc doesn't keep all the team egos in check?

Are the Celtics in their position if Doc doesn't help in the development of the young talent on this team?

Are the Celtics in their position if Doc doesn't rest his older players more than they are used to so that they can play multiple seven game series and win them?

Are the Celtics in their position if Doc doesn't help in coaching this team to the best record in the regular season and hence home court advantage?

What about these things that people omit in discussing Doc putting the Celts in a position to win?

[Brickowski]

Ever since Thibodeau arrived, the defense has been good.  Sure, having Garnett helps, but the defensive rotations utilize him to best advantage, not only to provide weak side help, but to control the point of attack. Even LeBron James couldn't get into the paint consistently against the Celtics' defense.

The offense is a different story.  It's way too predictable.  There is too much standing around. 

Option 1#: ball goes into Garnett, post entry passer cuts to the basket, double team comes, shoots the fadeaway jumper or passes it back out, after which they swing the ball for a trey.

Option #2: Ray Allen comes around a baseline double screen and shoots a jumper.

Option #3: high pick and roll for Pierce or Rondo.

Option #4: Give it to Pierce on the side, clear out,and pray.

That, and an occasional awkward post up move by Perkins, is the entire offense.  Except for the man making the post entry pass to Garnett, there is very little player movement without the ball, there are very few back screens or back cuts, Ray Allen is excluded from the offense when he isn't coming off a screen, there is no organized fast break... the list goes on. And don't even get me started on their inability to attack zone defenses.

Compared to Tex Winter's triangle, or to Jerry Sloan's high post sets, or Eddie Jordan's elegant Princetonesque motion offense, or even some of the decent motion offenses from the 50's and 60's (e.g the Vanderbilt shuffle), the Celtics offense is really second rate.