A Professional Gambler's Take on Doc

[BrickJames]

Interesting read, given that I've been working on a similar project for the past 5 months.

As far as his take on Doc - he had Cleveland beating Boston in the third round - so apparently he's not as smart as he thinks.

[cmoney]

again, Cleveland outscored Celtics on the series. It was a very close 7 game series.  You obviously understand very little about variance. 

[Change]

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

Good One. lol

[BrickJames]

again, Cleveland outscored Celtics on the series. It was a very close 7 game series.  You obviously understand very little about variance. 

Without going into my education, which I feel no need to defend to you, the fact that Cleveland outscored Boston in the series is far less important at face value than the other factors that determine the outcome of a playoff series.

The only thing obvious here is your lack of perception and/or understanding of the business of basketball.

[BrickJames]

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.

This makes sense when you are betting the over/under - which is what he admitted his expertise was - not when you are betting individual outcomes or even series outcomes.

Now, I'm not a Doc apologist, but have you ever thunk that maybe, just maybe, Doc is purposefully making "suspect" coaching decisions at end of quarter/game scenarios?

Hmm.....

[EJPLAYA]

I assemble basketballs in a sweat shop in Indonesia, and I wanted to comment on Doc's abilities as a coach. Since I deal with basketballs every day I think that I am more than qualified to be an expert in this area...

[BrickJames]

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

Good One. lol

As funny as this sounds, this is very close to how Theo Epstein got his job...

[Cman]

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

I don't know that it is necessary to have an analytically minded person as a coach.  You just need them in the back crunching the numbers (as Bill James does for the Red Sox).   You don't need the number crunchers to be the head coach (last I checked, Francona was not a number cruncher).  I am sure that the Celtics have number crunchers in the back office that go over this stuff when thinking about which players to draft, trade, etc (I really am sure, I saw a job posting for this once, but sadly my life is out here on the West Coast). 

In the past I have been a big doubter of Doc; on bad days, I still am (like this morning).  But credit needs to be given where credit is due: Doc is a pretty good coach.

[BballTim]

I assemble basketballs in a sweat shop in Indonesia, and I wanted to comment on Doc's abilities as a coach. Since I deal with basketballs every day I think that I am more than qualified to be an expert in this area...

  My son played HS basketball. I guess that qualifies me...

[Ben Pepper]

Not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but there is an article on ESPN's TrueHoop about a financially successful professional gambler whose main source of income is betting on the NBA, watching about 1,000 games per season.

While most the articles focuses on the Donaghy/betting scandal, towards the end he talks about the important of coaching the NBA and the best and worst coaches in the league.

The Best: Greg Popovich

"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."

The Worst: Doc Rivers

"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 don't neccesarily agree with him, but it's an interesting view from a rare viewpoint.


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

[BrickJames]

Uhh, Ben...that is what this thread is about....

[wdleehi]

Uhh, Ben...that is what this thread is about....

He didn't see this thread. 


I merged them. 

[BrickJames]

Uhh, Ben...that is what this thread is about....

He didn't see this thread. 


I merged them. 

my B    makes sense now

[cmoney]

brickjames,

This makes sense when you are betting the over/under - which is what he admitted his expertise was - not when you are betting individual outcomes or even series outcomes.

Don't think I agree here, completely anyway.  My point is:  the series was a lot closer than the books were making it, as were individual games.  Betting CLE was (probably) the smart money (don't recall the lines). 

cman,

Yeah, I meant GMs more so than coaches.  I mean, I wouldn't want John Hollinger running practices.  But I do think there are some really basic, simple in-game things that many coaches routinely screw up.  Going for the 2for1 (Doc actually does this regularly, so kudos to him), not giving unnecessary fouls, waiting too long to foul when you're down late.  It wouldn't take a whole lot

Like with the As.. Billy Beane wasn't the manager, but he made [dang] sure his managers weren't calling for bunts and hit and runs.   A smart front office can help the coach out in the areas he's probably less informed in (the "math" of the game), and leave him to coaching the schemes, running practice, motivation, etc. 

[kevbo]

Truthfully, I enjoyed this read yesterday, but don't really need Voulgaris's "database" analysis to tell me Doc has some head-scratching decisions as a coach. All I have to do is fire up NBA 2K8; computer-simulated Doc often has a better "feel" for the game than actual Doc. In fact, it's one of my biggest complaints about that game's realism. I end up often having to screw up the rotations myself, call timeouts at inopportune times, forcibly keep Sam Cassell out on the floor too long, and futz with settings so that we don't foul down the stretch of a winnable game. It's hard work making 2K8 resemble the real thing.

Seriously though, I appreciated Voulgaris's take, but I give it as much credence as any other fan or non-professional's opinion. Possibly valid, but not necessarily authoritative by any means. A more interesting subtext to this conversation was not Doc for me, but that the most interesting objective analysis done on the NBA seems to be largely the work of gamblers. Sure, this makes sense considering their incentives for gaining a betting advantage. Still though, if gamblers are busy compiling data on such things as referees, and clearly considering their influence on the outcomes of games in their analysis, then why aren't there more mainstream non-gambling outlets that keep referee statistics and make them available to fans to consider the performance of the officials? Maybe I just am not aware of them, but I think such publicly available stats would go a long way to assuage some fan doubts about the nba's integrity.