Knicks weren't playing a big man when Doc did that. When they had a big on the floor so did the C's. You want Bass/Wilcox guarding Novak? Melo? JR Smith?
Look at our rotation and then tell me this is Doc's fault.
We're missing four of our starters. Let me say that again: our starting PG, SG, PF and C are all injured.
We gave 40 minutes to a guy who couldn't get on the court in Washington. The worst part is that he deserved it - not because he's so good, but because he's the best of a bad situation.
No coach in the league could win with the squad we suited up tonight.
Not if they went 3 sgs and 2 sf for a large portion of the game.
That sounds insane. Some might not think much of our new bigs, but they are big. Basketball has not changed that much in the last 50 years. Big men are an important part of the game. You play who you got, in their right positions, and then outcoach the other team.
Yet in the end it was turnovers that did us in more than anything, which had little to do with the lack of "bigs" you are harping on.
I guess we see basketball differently. I like traditional basketball and traditional line-ups no matter what the opponent counters with. Over the history of the NBA, that has been the most successful formula.
As far as the turnovers, it happens when you don't have a true pg (as mentioned above) and everyone is playing out of their natural/more comfortable positions.
Last night the C's didn't have the players to play traditional line ups, especially with the other team only playing one or none big men.
I don't think citing tradition an eschewing thinking about how things are occuring on the court is a good way to analyze coaching decisions.
How you match up, how you'll guard the other teams actions, and how you'll run your offensive action should be what you look at. Instead its:
If 2 tall guys in Then
Of course when Doc does play the tall guys and it still doesn't "work", he's "playing the wrong ones". Bass is the target this time, used to be Davis. Before that it was O'Neal, etc.