If doc is a good coach why does he do this?

[nickagneta]

To be clear, it's not necessarily two games I'm worried about (although, again, it makes no sense to leave your starters out there for potential injuries when you don't need to).  Rather, I'm concerned about the trend that Doc has shown of running Ray into the ground.  It's not a new thing.

Yet despite this Ray had a career season last year. Go figure.

Yeah, Ray had a tremendous finish to the season, too, shooting 38.1% in April, followed by a playoffs where he shot 40.3%.  Go figure.

Yeah those shooting numbers in the playoffs had nothing to do with a hurt hammy and shooting 35% and 21% from three in the Orlando series, Roy. He had an unreal Chicago series playing long minutes. But let's completely discount that with numbers that are skewed because of a player playing through an injury over a 7 game series.

[kozlodoev]

There's absolutely no reason to play a player 38+ minutes in a 30 point blowout

This is, clearly, an overstatement.

Ray had a hamstring injury in the playoffs.

And he missed zero games because of it. That doesn't qualify as "injury problems" because most players are banged up in the end of the season, regardless of whether they play 24 or 42 minutes a game.

[Roy Hobbs]

To be clear, it's not necessarily two games I'm worried about (although, again, it makes no sense to leave your starters out there for potential injuries when you don't need to).  Rather, I'm concerned about the trend that Doc has shown of running Ray into the ground.  It's not a new thing.

Yet despite this Ray had a career season last year. Go figure.

Yeah, Ray had a tremendous finish to the season, too, shooting 38.1% in April, followed by a playoffs where he shot 40.3%.  Go figure.

Yeah those shooting numbers in the playoffs had nothing to do with a hurt hammy and shooting 35% and 21% from three in the Orlando series, Roy. He had an unreal Chicago series playing long minutes. But let's completely discount that with numbers that are skewed because of a player playing through an injury over a 7 game series.

The hamstring had nothing to do with him being worn down?  And playing extra minutes on an already injured hamstring had no effect on his performance?

Ray struggled in April in the regular season, and he had a poorer second half than he did first half.  He was worn down toward the end of the year, and Paul Pierce publicly lobbied on his behalf for reduced minutes.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument, since it's pretty clear to me that even those fans who previously said they thought Ray played too much are now defending Doc's decisions tooth and nail. 

I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.  However, if I were Doc, I wouldn't go to the "38 minutes in a blowout on back-to-back nights" well too often.

[kozlodoev]

Yeah, Ray had a tremendous finish to the season, too, shooting 38.1% in April, followed by a playoffs where he shot 40.3%.  Go figure.

All the 5 games in April are surely a good reason to discount the other 74 games he played this season. Way to go where straw men are concerned.

[fairweatherfan]

Question:  how many of the "it's okay, Ray asked to stay in" folks were criticizing Grady Little when he left in Pedro to melt down against the Yankees, because Pedro wanted to stay in the game?

Let's see - player wants to stay in to get into a regular season groove with a 26 pt lead against a bad team in the 2nd game of the season, player wants to stay in against a very dangerous archrival with a 3 run lead in Game 7 of the ALCS...yup, perfect analogy, no relevant differences here  

The basic concept is the same:  coaches need to do what's best for the team. 

No, it's a ridiculous false equivalence - the stakes and the margin for error are not in the same stratosphere, and that's even if you ignore the stark difference in role between a pitcher and a shooting guard.  Grady keeping Pedro in for an extra out against the Royals with an 8-0 lead in April is the equivalent scenario.

If Ray had blown out a knee because he's playing meaningless minutes, nobody would be saying "yeah, but he wanted to stay in to work on his shot".

And if my Grandma had wheels she'd be a go-kart.  This thread has gone into very, very silly territory.  Time for bed.

[Tai]

Question:  how many of the "it's okay, Ray asked to stay in" folks were criticizing Grady Little when he left in Pedro to melt down against the Yankees, because Pedro wanted to stay in the game?

Coaches are supposed to regulate minutes.  And yes, if people choose to ignore the past two seasons and focus only on the first two games, it's a small sample size.  However, people have 150+ games to judge on, not two.

Ray Allen should not be playing 38+ minutes on back-to-back nights, period.  This is especially true when we have a 30 point lead in the third quarter. 

Look, I don't want the Big 3 playing more minutes than they have to this season as much as the next guy, but comparing 80 minutes for Ray Allen after two regular season games (that he requested no less) to Pedro being kept in a crucial game (ALCS Game 7 no less) when he was wearing out just sounds plain cynical to me.

The fact that you even had to pull this comparison just tells me this is a non-issue. I mean, the thing is....you're worried about Ray Allen blowing out an ankle? What was the problem with Pedro? He was tired, and his pitches were probably not gonna be as crisp. These two issues aren't even in the same two sports, let alone the same two hemispheres.

[Silent Storm]

There may be more to it than what we know. Shooters who are perfectionists like Ray Allen feel better when they see the ball go through the hoop, so being 6-17 along with a missed free throw on the night, Ray may have requested an exception for extended minutes to find his rhythm.

[crownsy]

To be clear, it's not necessarily two games I'm worried about (although, again, it makes no sense to leave your starters out there for potential injuries when you don't need to).  Rather, I'm concerned about the trend that Doc has shown of running Ray into the ground.  It's not a new thing.

Yet despite this Ray had a career season last year. Go figure.

Yeah, Ray had a tremendous finish to the season, too, shooting 38.1% in April, followed by a playoffs where he shot 40.3%.  Go figure.

Yeah those shooting numbers in the playoffs had nothing to do with a hurt hammy and shooting 35% and 21% from three in the Orlando series, Roy. He had an unreal Chicago series playing long minutes. But let's completely discount that with numbers that are skewed because of a player playing through an injury over a 7 game series.

The hamstring had nothing to do with him being worn down?  And playing extra minutes on an already injured hamstring had no effect on his performance?

Ray struggled in April in the regular season, and he had a poorer second half than he did first half.  He was worn down toward the end of the year, and Paul Pierce publicly lobbied on his behalf for reduced minutes.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument, since it's pretty clear to me that even those fans who previously said they thought Ray played too much are now defending Doc's decisions tooth and nail. 

I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.  However, if I were Doc, I wouldn't go to the "38 minutes in a blowout on back-to-back nights" well too often.

It's one decision i don't agree with you on....how is that defending it tooth and nail?

Am i supposed to post "you're right roy, there's absolutely no excuse for playing a guy 3 extra minutes when he asks for it." to have a say?

Can't i just disagree that doc playing ray 38 minutes instead of 34 2 games in isn't worthy of an 6 page discussion?

[nickagneta]

To be clear, it's not necessarily two games I'm worried about (although, again, it makes no sense to leave your starters out there for potential injuries when you don't need to).  Rather, I'm concerned about the trend that Doc has shown of running Ray into the ground.  It's not a new thing.

Yet despite this Ray had a career season last year. Go figure.

Yeah, Ray had a tremendous finish to the season, too, shooting 38.1% in April, followed by a playoffs where he shot 40.3%.  Go figure.

Yeah those shooting numbers in the playoffs had nothing to do with a hurt hammy and shooting 35% and 21% from three in the Orlando series, Roy. He had an unreal Chicago series playing long minutes. But let's completely discount that with numbers that are skewed because of a player playing through an injury over a 7 game series.

The hamstring had nothing to do with him being worn down? 

I don't know.

Maybe because it was because he lost his footing and overstretched himself landing in an awkward position?

Maybe it's because he forgot to stretch properly one day before the game?

Maybe he picked up his son wrong?

Maybe he slipped on a rain puddle?

I don't know the answer to that Roy but your assumption that he hurt his hammy because he was worn down can be easily explained away if it was just a freak thing. You are assuming facts not in evidence.

I will admit, and did in the game thread, too much. He did. But if he wanted to to get himself a better rhythm, let him, this is game 2 not game 22 or 42 or 62 or 82. This is nothing more than a mountain being made into a molehill by people not so keen on Doc because there's nothing else to complain about after a 33 point win.(BTW I'm not saying YOU are one of those people, I think you just like arguing a point you make. LOL) It is only game freaking 2 after all.

Of course if Ray gets in early foul trouble against Chicago and then plays only 22 minutes, this is all going to mean exactly, squat.

[Roy Hobbs]

To be clear, it's not necessarily two games I'm worried about (although, again, it makes no sense to leave your starters out there for potential injuries when you don't need to).  Rather, I'm concerned about the trend that Doc has shown of running Ray into the ground.  It's not a new thing.

Yet despite this Ray had a career season last year. Go figure.

Yeah, Ray had a tremendous finish to the season, too, shooting 38.1% in April, followed by a playoffs where he shot 40.3%.  Go figure.

Yeah those shooting numbers in the playoffs had nothing to do with a hurt hammy and shooting 35% and 21% from three in the Orlando series, Roy. He had an unreal Chicago series playing long minutes. But let's completely discount that with numbers that are skewed because of a player playing through an injury over a 7 game series.

The hamstring had nothing to do with him being worn down?  And playing extra minutes on an already injured hamstring had no effect on his performance?

Ray struggled in April in the regular season, and he had a poorer second half than he did first half.  He was worn down toward the end of the year, and Paul Pierce publicly lobbied on his behalf for reduced minutes.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument, since it's pretty clear to me that even those fans who previously said they thought Ray played too much are now defending Doc's decisions tooth and nail. 

I hope you're right, and I'm wrong.  However, if I were Doc, I wouldn't go to the "38 minutes in a blowout on back-to-back nights" well too often.

It's one decision i don't agree with you on....how is that defending it tooth and nail?

Am i supposed to post "you're right roy, there's absolutely no excuse for playing a guy 3 extra minutes when he asks for it." to have a say?

Can't i just disagree that doc playing ray 38 minutes instead of 34 2 games in isn't worthy of an 6 page discussion?

You may have noticed, crownsy, that you're not the only one defending Doc here.

[CelticG1]

I think it's fine for Ray to stay out there an extra few minutes in a blow out to just sit at the 3 point line and work on his rhythm. That must be the easiest 40 minute game he has ever played in. Probably easier than him going insanely hard in a grueling 30 minutes against top competition. People make too much noise about "minutes". Those 3 extra minutes are nothing

[BudweiserCeltic]

8 minutes, 3 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 bad foul, 1 missed shot. I really don't know how that translates to a disaster of a player. I mean it's not like he's doing a ton of awful mistakes that really costs us... it's not like he's shooting a ton of shots and missing them. For the most part he keeps away from the rest, and with all the talent we have on our team I'm not so sure that entirely that awful of a thing.

[nickagneta]

8 minutes, 3 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 bad foul, 1 missed shot. I really don't know how that translates to a disaster of a player. I mean it's not like he's doing a ton of awful mistakes that really costs us... it's not like he's shooting a ton of shots and missing them. For the most part he keeps away from the rest, and with all the talent we have on our team I'm not so sure that entirely that awful of a thing.

Did you watch the game or are you going off the box score. He was a step to slow on offense, never boxed out once, played passive matador defense and/or was missing his assignments on switches. He was awful. I mean really awful. I mean, I just don't know if he has it upstairs to play the complex schemes and switches and offenses that the pro game has that you would never see in a mid-level Division I basketball program. He just looks lost.

He appears athletic enough and like he probably has mad skills if he was playing in an uncomplex simple system with few real plays and easy, man to man assignments on defense, but that is my old man's NBA not this one. He was terrible and I think Doc avoiding using him as long as he did signifies just how little he thinks of his game.

[BudweiserCeltic]

8 minutes, 3 rebounds, 1 steal, 1 bad foul, 1 missed shot. I really don't know how that translates to a disaster of a player. I mean it's not like he's doing a ton of awful mistakes that really costs us... it's not like he's shooting a ton of shots and missing them. For the most part he keeps away from the rest, and with all the talent we have on our team I'm not so sure that entirely that awful of a thing.

Did you watch the game or are you going off the box score. He was a step to slow on offense, never boxed out once, played passive matador defense and/or was missing his assignments on switches. He was awful. I mean really awful. I mean, I just don't know if he has it upstairs to play the complex schemes and switches and offenses that the pro game has that you would never see in a mid-level Division I basketball program. He just looks lost.

He appears athletic enough and like he probably has mad skills if he was playing in an uncomplex simple system with few real plays and easy, man to man assignments on defense, but that is my old man's NBA not this one. He was terrible and I think Doc avoiding using him as long as he did signifies just how little he thinks of his game.

Be that as it may, the net result is not awful awful awful that he can't be inserted alongside superior players alongside him for an overall positive effort by the group.

I really could care less if he's lost on offense, he's mostly being sent to the corner... remember Rondo in his second year? In fact, he was directed there a couple of times by the PG.

As I said, as long as he's not dominating the ball and doing crappy decisions with the ball, I really could care less about him on offense being lost, etc. The impact in the scheme of things of his deficiencies are so low overall that it's irrelevant to me when I consider how a unit will function with him on the floor.

This is what I keep mentioning when I say Doc can easily afford to play these young guys more minutes. Not necessarily because they're playing good basketball, but because in the scheme of things our team can afford to do so, and it will only improve our young guys' games going forward. Same goes to Walker. Now if it was Hudson we're talking about, who is being tasked to control the basketball and he fails then that's something to really consider when deciding to play him. But if you have guys that mostly play off the ball, and rarely touch the ball like Walker and Giddens, Doc can easily find some moments here and there to play them and further their development regardless of the low priority he may have in doing so.

[mgent]

Minutes don't mean nearly as much as people think they do.