A Professional Gambler's Take on Doc

[KelticFan]

This is taken from an excellent article on Truehoop on a
very successful gambler's take on Tim Donaghy's assertions
regarding gamefixing:

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-32-308/A-Professional-Gambler-s-Take-on-the-Tim-Donaghy-Scandal.html

I generally disregard most opinions on the coaching ability because
I personally do not value analysis by anecdote due to the presumption
that the one doing the analysis has access to the correct strategy.
I assume GMs have some incentive to be accurate on this ability since
their jobs depend on it, however they may be succeptible to correlated
biases, whether correct or not, that exist in NBA circles. Thus, I have
no strong opinion on Doc other than Danny seemed to value him enough to
keep him on, and Danny is a guy who stated that he would have traded Bird.

I find this gambler's opinion interesting because he is also heavily interested
in the outcome, however his analytical approach might allow him to escape some
traditional biases. While he didn't mention how any of the analysis he did
related to coaching, his conclusions were not to pleasing:

The best coach in the league (and its not even close) is Gregg Popovich. He is without peer in terms of how well he manages a game, as well as prepares his team. It's really not even close, he is just that much better than every other coach in the league. If you are ever unsure of what the correct strategy is in a certain situation, look to the Spurs. If they are doing it, it's probably the right strategy.

There are a lot of coaches who do a poor job with what I call the mathematics of the game, but to be fair, maybe they are better at other aspects of their job like motivation or player development.

However, I have a hard time believing that Doc Rivers could ever make up for his in-game strategy with his ability to motivate or develop players. I would like to have seen how the Celtics would have fared this year if they didn't hire Tom Thibodeau to install a great defensive system. If Popovich is the guy you lean to if you are unsure of what to do, Rivers is certainly the guy you look to if you want to know what NOT to do.


I'm curious as to how he came to these conclusions, if they involve something more than "In situation X, I think the right thing to do is Y, but the coach did Z". If the mapping of X to Y involved some sort of mathematical analysis, he may be a good addition to Mike Zarren, and he does say that he's looking for an entry level position in the NBA.

As a Celtic fan, I just hope that it doesn't end up mattering in the series.

[ACF]

Outcoaching Phil, it's so easy.
Even a caveman could do it.

Well, maybe not quite.
But you get the point, right?
(Yeah, it rhymes!)

[cmoney]

I found this pretty interesting.  I'm involved in large online community of gamblers, both professional and not.  There's a sports talk forum there, and that's generally where I do most of my NBA chatter.  In fact we do it a ton.  Given our background, we're much more skewed to the mathematical, systematic analysis of the league.

And the majority of us agree with many things this guy is saying.  For intance, the Shaq trade, and to a lesser extent, the Kidd trade.  Those were obvious disasters to me and others. 

For the most part I agree about Pop, namely in game strategy, where he is truly superb.  I think he's less good at personnel decisions (i.e. continuing to play Horry and giving Jacque Vaughn burn when Brent Barry should have been playing much more minutes). 

He's right about most the in game situations that a lot of teams screw up:  2 for 1s, using the 'foul to give' for no good reason, taking long 2s instead of 3s, etc.

OK I guess I sort of hi-jacked this.  The main point is Doc.  And he's right about Doc.  From a pure strategic standpoint, there's really only one thing I think Doc does well, and that's call plays out of timeouts.  Other stuff, like when to foul, when to take a TO, in game adjustments, offensive/defensive rotations (like subbing out Posey near the end of game 6 in the ECF.. made no sense) I think he's very bad at.  Like his ongoing love for not defending the inbounder.  He sticks the 5th defender in a 'zone' that does nearly nothing.  Oh so bad.

[cordobes]

A professional gambler?

What does he know about coaching, exactly? Has he ever played pick-up basketball at least?

Those are cliches I've been reading for years. Now Doc reached the finals because he hired Tom Thibodeau... maybe... but I'd like to know what was this expert saying in the pre-season. Probably that the Celtics wouldn't win more than 45 games and wouldn't go further than the 1st round because of Doc.

[cordobes]

Owners should fire their GMs and head-coaches and start hiring gamblers for their positions.

[BballTim]

However, I have a hard time believing that Doc Rivers could ever make up for his in-game strategy with his ability to motivate or develop players. I would like to have seen how the Celtics would have fared this year if they didn't hire Tom Thibodeau to install a great defensive system.

  I'm not a great Doc defender, but I think this is hogwash. Aside from the fact that we've heard that the system that Tib uses is Doc's system, the defensive improvement has a lot more to do with the change in players than in any change in strategy.

[cmoney]

no they should just hire analytically minded people, or at least get them some training in that department.

82games has a nice article from a while back analyzing the performances of GMs who went straight from player -> GM versus non-players and players who had to work their way up to that position (think Joe Dumars, and now Kevin Pritchard).  Guys like Jordan, Isiah, McHale, and Baylor have awful track records.  Until this year so did Danny, but he was at least wise enough to stack up on assets.  Non-players and players with some training leading up to their position easily outperform those guys.

I mean it works in Baseball.  Beane, Theo, etc.. these are all analytically minded guys who take a more objective approach to player evaluation (and thus trades, contract negotiations, etc).  And they've been successful while doing it.  Meanwhile guys like Steve Phillips quickly find their ways out of a GM job and doing ESPN hack broadcasts.

[Roy Hobbs]

A professional gambler?

What does he know about coaching, exactly?

That's pretty much my take on it as well, although I in general have no great love for Doc.  I don't take this guy's opinion as being any more valid than some random guy off the street who watches the Celtics semi-regularly.

I think Doc has some good points and some bad points, but I don't need a professional gambler to tell me what they are.

[cmoney]

However, I have a hard time believing that Doc Rivers could ever make up for his in-game strategy with his ability to motivate or develop players. I would like to have seen how the Celtics would have fared this year if they didn't hire Tom Thibodeau to install a great defensive system.

  I'm not a great Doc defender, but I think this is hogwash. Aside from the fact that we've heard that the system that Tib uses is Doc's system, the defensive improvement has a lot more to do with the change in players than in any change in strategy.

Severely underestimating Tom T's impact.  KG has always been a great defender, but he never anchored a team quite like this.  Their schemes have been superb.  And for once they're actually successful defending a pick and roll, which had previously been a joke during the Doc Rivers era.

[Hoops]

You know, when I first read this guy's opinion of Doc, I thought it was interesting. It may even be true (from an analytical standpoint). But at the end of the day, I'm becoming more inclined to say this:

If the Celtics win the title, Doc is doing something right.

As much as I love the team Ainge has built, nobody could convince me that any old coach would have achieved what Doc has already achieved with this team this year. Give Ainge credit. Give Thibadeauoauoe credit. Give KG, Paul and Ray credit. Give the bench credit. Give Clifford Ray credit. But give Doc credit too. Maybe what he does in unconventional. Maybe there are things he could do better. I'm not a huge Doc lover, but I'm going to get Doc's back on this one. Doc really is the conductor of the Celtic symphony. And of right now, he's getting the job done. Winning is the only thing that matters.

[TheReaLPuba]

Doc would have looked like a great coach if he had KG, PP, and Allen their whole careers on the same team.

I don't know if you can take a gambler's perspective for too much than it's worth.

Sure he's made a lot of money off of his betting but that has more to do with # of total points and the point spread than any real basketball knowledge.

To say he has any more insight in basketball than Doc Rivers is ridiculous.

He might know more than the average fan but he's not going to out coach a high school coach so why even bother listening to his slander on Doc.

[KelticFan]

A professional gambler?

In the TrueHoop article, it mentions that he is one of four or five people [his own estimate]
who can make a career betting on the NBA. If true (it is his own claim, after all), he or his
techniques, would have some credibility beyond the average "professional" gambler.

What does he know about coaching, exactly? Has he ever played pick-up basketball at least?

A valid concern. However, how many of us know anything about coaching or coaching in the NBA
to properly evaluate it?

Those are cliches I've been reading for years. Now Doc reached the finals because he hired Tom Thibodeau... maybe... but I'd like to know what was this expert saying in the pre-season. Probably that the Celtics wouldn't win more than 45 games and wouldn't go further than the 1st round because of Doc.

He did mention that he picked the Cavaliers over the Celtics, but given that the first game was 70-70 with 1:17 to go and the last game was 89-88 with 2:20 to go, it was not out of the realm of possibility. He did make many correct calls in this postseason, and I'm assuming he's quite good at what he does if he indeed is as successful as he claims he is.

[BballTim]

However, I have a hard time believing that Doc Rivers could ever make up for his in-game strategy with his ability to motivate or develop players. I would like to have seen how the Celtics would have fared this year if they didn't hire Tom Thibodeau to install a great defensive system.

  I'm not a great Doc defender, but I think this is hogwash. Aside from the fact that we've heard that the system that Tib uses is Doc's system, the defensive improvement has a lot more to do with the change in players than in any change in strategy.

Severely underestimating Tom T's impact.  KG has always been a great defender, but he never anchored a team quite like this.  Their schemes have been superb.  And for once they're actually successful defending a pick and roll, which had previously been a joke during the Doc Rivers era.

  Last year we were an average defensive team and our top 6 players in terms of minutes were (in order) Jefferson, Gomes, West, Rondo, Gerald Green and a semi-healthy Paul Pierce. This year our top 6 (in order) are Pierce, Allen, Garnett, Rondo, Perkins and Posey. When you're comparing a Pierce dedicated to defense to Gerald Green, or comparing an interior defense of KG and Perk to Jefferson and Gomes I'd say dramatic improvement is an understatement. Can you see why defending a pick and roll might have been a joke last year?

[cmoney]

He did mention that he picked the Cavaliers over the Celtics

and the Cavs outscored the Celtics for the series, which is a stronger indication of performance than straight win/loss records.  So he actually made the smart pick. 

Of course, 7 games brings up sample size issues, but by and large, that was an extremely even series.   Cavs were underrated all year AND the Cs were playing sub-par, combining for that outcome.

[LooseCannon]

A professional gambler?

What does he know about coaching, exactly?

That's pretty much my take on it as well, although I in general have no great love for Doc.  I don't take this guy's opinion as being any more valid than some random guy off the street who watches the Celtics semi-regularly.

I think Doc has some good points and some bad points, but I don't need a professional gambler to tell me what they are.

Given the work that I suspect this guy has done, I would accord his opinions the same amount of respect that I would give to some notable sabermetricians when they disagree with the conventional wisdom about baseball.