Radical idea, start 'Sheed, make Pierce all Q4.

[Rondo2287]

Playing a full 12 minutes of NBA game uninterrupted seems to be a good way to make sure he's gassed to me.

Yes, he's supposedly gassed for the night, my guess is that it would at the circa 15 min zone, not earlier, but then... the game's over and he can go home and sleep. All and all, a 12 min *burn* is considered a great workout, even for someone in their forties. That's essentially a cross product of an anaerobic/aerobic workout but by keeping it contained, it allows for fast recovery. The other three quarters of sub-ing will be relatively easy for him and won't really add to the stressing of the muscles, joints, and ligaments.

OK but lets say, Lebron is covering Paul.  Thats probably not going to be the best matchup for the celts to score in the 4th quarter.  So then your saving him for the fourth and then going away from him because he doesnt give you the best chance to score in terms of matchups, so you effectively take paul out of the game. 

I feel like a good ammount of Paul or most of the dominant players in the NBA's games is that they set people up based on their previous moves earlier in the game.  If paul is going the same way off one move all game, when it counts and he really needs another bucket he goes the other way.  That kind of head game cant exhist when he isnt in the flow of the game for the whole game. 

[Reyquila]

Tell it to Doc,and see if he buys the idea. No sense discussing it in here

[TitleMaster]

If paul is going the same way off one move all game, when it counts and he really needs another bucket he goes the other way.  That kind of head game cant exist when he isnt in the flow of the game for the whole game.

I concur, however, at the same time, this is where I see Paul as a different player than let's say Ray Ray and KG. When Ray swooshed past Vujacic, during that game 4 in the finals, he'd fooled him, as Sasha was preparing for a pull up jumper. And likewise, when a big man anticipates a KG dunk, his common move within 5-7 ft, Garnett goes for a pass. I suspect that by not keeping the other two of the big 3, in constant game flow, that they don't gel well by Q4. On the other other hand, Paul is less like that. His sub-ing alone, in Q's 1 to 3, alters the game dramatically so that opponents will have to adapted to a whole non-PP Celts squad which is probably just as dangerous and anyone else's starting five.

In the final quarter, Paul is 100% Paul where in effect, he can dribble into 2 players and still get to the line, if let's say House, Rondo, or the rest goes cold from the field. The key is that Paul can still do that for let's say a maximum of 12 mins per game, but no more since he isn't 25 anymore. No one else in the Celts can put up easy points, on instinct alone. That's why having a fresh Paul Pierce for Q4, almost guarantees a win if the disparity isn't too wide.

[Fafnir]

First of all I think disrupting the typical rythm that Paul has had for 10 plus years in the NBA is a bad idea. I also don't think playing 12 consecutive minutes will ensure he's "fresh". But in the end that's not why your idea is awful.

I think you're overly concerned with the fourth quarter. You win as many games in the first three quarters as you do in the fourth. Taking Paul out of heavy rotation will increase the number of times the Celtics are down going into the fourth.

Increasing Daniels role to starter is a no go...

[TitleMaster]

I think you're overly concerned with the fourth quarter. You win as many games in the first three quarters as you do in the fourth. Taking Paul out of heavy rotation will increase the number of times the Celtics are down going into the fourth.

In other words, Perks, Rondo, House, 'Sheed, BBD, nevermind Ray Ray and KG, are somehow less than a typical NBA team? In a way, having a team as talented as ours, allows us to rest Pierce because for the most part, the others can carry their own against just about anyone else.

On the average, there are roughly 18 or so possessions per quarter. If Pierce can convert 9 of them, in Q4, to a free throw attempts, and he downs 15-16 out of 18, for an ordinary 100 pt game, that's 60% of a normal team's entire scoring for a quarter with no one else scoring. Now, that would be a really p*ss poor night for the Celts if that were to occur.

Increasing Daniels role to starter is a no go

Ok, so make it 'Sheed. If you recall, from '80 to '84, McHale didn't start, it was Maxwell. That didn't stop McHale from having terrific games. Does anyone remember that McHale was a bench player, for half the 80s championship teams?

[TitleMaster]

On the average, there are roughly 18 or so possessions per quarter. If Pierce can convert 9 of them, in Q4, to a free throw attempts, and he downs 15-16 out of 18, for an ordinary 100 pt game, that's 60% of a normal team's entire scoring for a quarter with no one else scoring. Now, that would be a really p*ss poor night for the Celts if that were to occur.

I know what the naysayers are thinking... this isn't reality. Actually, Paul has done it but if he tries it regularly, with his ordinary starter minutes, he'll be clearly burnt out in month's time.

[Tai]

If paul is going the same way off one move all game, when it counts and he really needs another bucket he goes the other way.  That kind of head game cant exist when he isnt in the flow of the game for the whole game.

I concur, however, at the same time, this is where I see Paul as a different player than let's say Ray Ray and KG. When Ray swooshed past Vujacic, during that game 4 in the finals, he'd fooled him, as Sasha was preparing for a pull up jumper. And likewise, when a big man anticipates a KG dunk, his common move within 5-7 ft, Garnett goes for a pass. I suspect that by not keeping the other two of the big 3, in constant game flow, that they don't gel well by Q4. On the other other hand, Paul is less like that. His sub-ing alone, in Q's 1 to 3, alters the game dramatically so that opponents will have to adapted to a whole non-PP Celts squad which is probably just as dangerous and anyone else's starting five.

In the final quarter, Paul is 100% Paul where in effect, he can dribble into 2 players and still get to the line, if let's say House, Rondo, or the rest goes cold from the field. The key is that Paul can still do that for let's say a maximum of 12 mins per game, but no more since he isn't 25 anymore. No one else in the Celts can put up easy points, on instinct alone. That's why having a fresh Paul Pierce for Q4, almost guarantees a win if the disparity isn't too wide.

To compliment what Fafnir said, a non-PP Celtics squad from quarters 1-3 is not more dangerous than a squad with Pierce on it, especially if you're starting Daniels in place of Pierce, because you're actually taking a shooter out of the starting lineup. So yeah, with Pierce on the bench for the majority of the first 36 minutes, we're more likely to be trailing coming into the 4th quarter than we will if he's playing his normal minutes. At best, you're babying him, at worse, he's not even in enough rhythm in the 4th to even "go to work".
 
Seriously, in 3 years, MAYBE you can talk to me about Pierce having his minutes severely lowered, but if you really believe that there's a place for any sorta plan like this NOW, I guess this serves as the overall thesis to your plan, that this is the main reason you even think such a plan could work.

So, firstly, do you really have this little faith in Pierce's stamina just based off his age that you believe that such a plan is necessary? I mean, he's only 10 months older than Kobe, and Kobe didn't even go to college, and in the process as actually been in the NBA two more years than Pierce. Secondly, considering what I just said, and assuming we're actually thinking of what would actually be better for the Lakers (wink wink), do you think Kobe should sign up for this little plan of yours too?

[Fafnir]

I think you're overly concerned with the fourth quarter. You win as many games in the first three quarters as you do in the fourth. Taking Paul out of heavy rotation will increase the number of times the Celtics are down going into the fourth.

In other words, Perks, Rondo, House, 'Sheed, BBD, nevermind Ray Ray and KG, are somehow less than a typical NBA team? In a way, having a team as talented as ours, allows us to rest Pierce because for the most part, the others can carry their own against just about anyone else.

I think our team without Pierce in heavy rotation in the first three quarters is worse than it could be with him. And we didn't always win or always blow out teams with our full team the last two years.

Ok, so make it 'Sheed. If you recall, from '80 to '84, McHale didn't start, it was Maxwell. That didn't stop McHale from having terrific games. Does anyone remember that McHale was a bench player, for half the 80s championship teams?

Sheed plays the 4/5 and is slow for a 4 now at his age. Asking him to play the three will only ensure foul trouble or an even bigger deficiet when Pierce comes back.

There is nothing wrong with asking one of your best players to come off the bench. But we do not have depth at the 3 that would require that approach.

If anything you'd have to ask Perk to do that not Pierce....

[Tai]

On the average, there are roughly 18 or so possessions per quarter. If Pierce can convert 9 of them, in Q4, to a free throw attempts, and he downs 15-16 out of 18, for an ordinary 100 pt game, that's 60% of a normal team's entire scoring for a quarter with no one else scoring. Now, that would be a really p*ss poor night for the Celts if that were to occur.

I know what the naysayers are thinking... this isn't reality. Actually, Paul has done it but if he tries it regularly, with his ordinary starter minutes, he'll be clearly burnt out in month's time.

Firstly, when'd he "clearly" get burnt out? When the Celtics went 27-2 and then tapered off? Wasn't that EVERYONE?

Or do you mean the playoffs, when virtually EVERYONE's minutes were extended as a result of KG being hurt? At least you're not claiming KG sits out for this plan, since an argument could be made that he'll burn out faster than Pierce might, if anyone will.

Secondly, part of the reason the Celtics may have tapered off PERIOD was because of the bench. That's all everyone talked about during the season last year, so much so that I don't even know if most people remember that a bench is something you can sit on, too. Look at our bench now. So, if the starting lineup (WITH Pierce) gets early leads, and the bench actually MAINTAINS those leads instead of dropping them like hot potatoes, maybe we'll see more of our scrubs for the 4th quarter in a blowout instead of the starting unit trying to win a close game.

Again, there's really no place for your plan. Again, at best, you're unnecessarily babying Pierce and not maximizing his potential role at this point, and at worst, he loses his rhythm and isn't effective in the 4th after all.  

[TitleMaster]

Looks fellows, Pierce has a got a poor man's type of Dream Shake, it's a spin, drive, grind, and draw contact move which he does, with amazing reproducibility, whenever he's fresh for a game. All and all, it's his money ball. There's no way anyone can take that away from him unless he's beat, from let's say two back-to-back games of 35-40 minutes. Whenever Paul is being let's say the total package, from crashing boards, wrestling with opponents on the block, etc, he expends a ton of energy. Now, as we all know, energy is not unlimited, this is simple thermodynamics.

On the other hand, when Big Baby Davis is let's say roughing up others on the block, crashing boards, etc, true, he uses up energy but at the same time, he's a non-all star sub and thus, his expenditure is less costly, to the team overall. The point of my argument is simply that since Paul Pierce has a 'money ball', a move that he can do, continually w/o variation. I see him as the most important person to keep fresh for the end zone, whereas neither KG nor Perks have a consistent Kareem sky hook which they can drop at will.

Try to understand why a 38 yr old Kareem couldn't be stopped by either Parish or McHale in '85. It was simple, he either dropped his Sky Hook or made a back cutter pass to Worthy for a jam. The Celtics could stop one or the other, but not both.

Here's my spread for Pierce:

Q1 - 3-4 mins
Q2 - 3-4 mins
Q3 - 4-5 mins
Q4 – 11 mins (1 minute water break)


Now, here's what I don't get, a triad of Daniels, BBD, and 'Sheed can't keep the C's from a first three quarters meltdown and thus, enabling let's say a Rockets, Sixers, or Bucks to blow past us in the game w/o avail? I just don't think the rest of the league is that good.

So then what happens in Q4... Rondo takes the ball up, finds Ray, bullets the pass, Ray's then gets covered, Pierce is in motion, Ray passes it, Paul catches the pass from Ray, draws contact, goes to the line. 2 pts. Next cycle, help defenders come to a stop Pierce, Pierce passes back to Rondo, Rondo takes a wide open jumper. Third option, same play, defenders block all passages towards Pierce, Perkins dunks it in as his opposing help defender has his eyes on Paul.

[Fafnir]

Why are you obsessed with the fourth quarter? Your plan would limit Pierce and the team's rhythm with him as he would only play for short stretches.

Pierce is this teams second best player, best offensive player right? Well why in the world are you keeping out of the game for 3/4ths of it except for short spurts like he's Tony Allen!?

He'd be out of rhythm in the fourth and the team would more likely than not be in a worse position than if he had played more in the early game. And that's assuming you've given up your crazy play Rasheed at the 3.....

Pierce isn't magic, he won't always dominate even if he is fresh. I could see using a super 6th man for this team, but with a more sane minute distribution. Take a look at Manu's a few years ago. That'd work out just fine, but not this.

[Fafnir]

Also I'm not sure what all the hypothetical talk about how specific plays will break down will mean. I love Pierce, but he's not Kareem....

[Rondo_is_better]

There is a difference between radical and innovative. Radical is bad. Innovative is good. This idea is radical.

[guava_wrench]

I'm shocked this thread is reappearing on the latest forum topics.

[RAcker]

I'm shocked this thread is reappearing on the latest forum topics.

I had the same thought.  There are a lot more threads that are well thought out and provoking that don't stay alive this long.