Why Doc doesn't experiment with Lineup Changes?

[MBunge]

Also, something we haven't discussed is that the return of Pietrus made it possible for us to go small-ball with him at the 4.

But that has nothing to do with Stiemsma's play.  I completely agree that a major reason for Steamer's drop in minutes is that Doc wants to play small ball.  That's what Doc and any coach does.  They make decisions about what is best for the team.  Sometimes they work.  Sometimes they don't.  When those decisions fail, however, it's ridiculous to pretend the coach isn't exercising judgment and that a different decision couldn't have been made.

Mike

[nickagneta]

Okay, I read the OP and the first page. Here's what I think:

I think the average sports fan is so impatient for immediate results he doesn't see what is trying working for the best of the best teams in sports. Consistency.

Consistency in coaching. Consistency in management. Consistency in drafting. Consistency in how the team is run.

Belichick and the Pats. Coughlin and the Giants.
Torre and the Yankees. Francona and the Sox.
Jackson and LA. Riley and Miami. Doc and Danny and Boston.

Running things the same way works. Making constant changes to your lineups, to your locker room hierarchy, to the way you play offense and defense, to the way you treat players, to the way you do just about anything is bad for players at this level of performance.

It works in high school. It works some in college. But at the highest levels of competition and talent it is best to have a system, have a lineup, have a way of going about business and sticking to it through thick and thin, bad and good.

The Celtics players don't want to come in and not know their role or what is expected out of them or how and when they will play. They want, need and crave consistency for proper physical and mental preparation.

Hate Doc because he makes young players earn their keep and because he doesn't tinker with lineups or substitution patterns all the time. So what!!! I say its what makes him one of the best coaches in all of basketball. And if you don't think so, just watch. My guess is after his gig with the C's ends he is asked to coach Team USA someday.

[ballin]

Okay, I read the OP and the first page. Here's what I think:

I think the average sports fan is so impatient for immediate results he doesn't see what is trying working for the best of the best teams in sports. Consistency.

Consistency in coaching. Consistency in management. Consistency in drafting. Consistency in how the team is run.

Belichick and the Pats. Coughlin and the Giants.
Torre and the Yankees. Francona and the Sox.
Jackson and LA. Riley and Miami. Doc and Danny and Boston.

Running things the same way works. Making constant changes to your lineups, to your locker room hierarchy, to the way you play offense and defense, to the way you treat players, to the way you do just about anything is bad for players at this level of performance.

It works in high school. It works some in college. But at the highest levels of competition and talent it is best to have a system, have a lineup, have a way of going about business and sticking to it through thick and thin, bad and good.

The Celtics players don't want to come in and not know their role or what is expected out of them or how and when they will play. They want, need and crave consistency for proper physical and mental preparation.

Hate Doc because he makes young players earn their keep and because he doesn't tinker with lineups or substitution patterns all the time. So what!!! I say its what makes him one of the best coaches in all of basketball. And if you don't think so, just watch. My guess is after his gig with the C's ends he is asked to coach Team USA someday.

I just want to point out that your entire theory is invalidated by the Mavs en route to their title last year. They CONSTANTLY made changes (throughout the playoffs, no less) to devastating effect on their opponents, including changing their starting lineup halfway through the finals and implementing a zone defense essentially out of nowhere.

So, I mean, the most recent and relevant example to our conversation says this theory doesn't hold water. Therefore, I'm gonna stick with my own crazy theory that putting your best players on the floor gives you a better chance to win than any alleged advantage gained by playing crappy players over and over again.

[nickagneta]

Okay, I read the OP and the first page. Here's what I think:

I think the average sports fan is so impatient for immediate results he doesn't see what is trying working for the best of the best teams in sports. Consistency.

Consistency in coaching. Consistency in management. Consistency in drafting. Consistency in how the team is run.

Belichick and the Pats. Coughlin and the Giants.
Torre and the Yankees. Francona and the Sox.
Jackson and LA. Riley and Miami. Doc and Danny and Boston.

Running things the same way works. Making constant changes to your lineups, to your locker room hierarchy, to the way you play offense and defense, to the way you treat players, to the way you do just about anything is bad for players at this level of performance.

It works in high school. It works some in college. But at the highest levels of competition and talent it is best to have a system, have a lineup, have a way of going about business and sticking to it through thick and thin, bad and good.

The Celtics players don't want to come in and not know their role or what is expected out of them or how and when they will play. They want, need and crave consistency for proper physical and mental preparation.

Hate Doc because he makes young players earn their keep and because he doesn't tinker with lineups or substitution patterns all the time. So what!!! I say its what makes him one of the best coaches in all of basketball. And if you don't think so, just watch. My guess is after his gig with the C's ends he is asked to coach Team USA someday.

I just want to point out that your entire theory is invalidated by the Mavs en route to their title last year. They CONSTANTLY made changes (throughout the playoffs, no less) to devastating effect on their opponents, including changing their starting lineup halfway through the finals and implementing a zone defense essentially out of nowhere.

So, I mean, the most recent and relevant example to our conversation says this theory doesn't hold water. Therefore, I'm gonna stick with my own crazy theory that putting your best players on the floor gives you a better chance to win than any alleged advantage gained by playing crappy players over and over again.

You win NBA titles with superstars. Was that theory invalidated by the 2004 Pistons winning it all without a superstar or was it the exception to the rule? Easy it was the exception to the rule.

So I say you are wrong and that my theory holds and that what Dallas did was the exception to the rule.

[Change]

Okay, I read the OP and the first page. Here's what I think:

I think the average sports fan is so impatient for immediate results he doesn't see what is trying working for the best of the best teams in sports. Consistency.

Consistency in coaching. Consistency in management. Consistency in drafting. Consistency in how the team is run.

Belichick and the Pats. Coughlin and the Giants.
Torre and the Yankees. Francona and the Sox.
Jackson and LA. Riley and Miami. Doc and Danny and Boston.

Running things the same way works. Making constant changes to your lineups, to your locker room hierarchy, to the way you play offense and defense, to the way you treat players, to the way you do just about anything is bad for players at this level of performance.

It works in high school. It works some in college. But at the highest levels of competition and talent it is best to have a system, have a lineup, have a way of going about business and sticking to it through thick and thin, bad and good.

The Celtics players don't want to come in and not know their role or what is expected out of them or how and when they will play. They want, need and crave consistency for proper physical and mental preparation.

Hate Doc because he makes young players earn their keep and because he doesn't tinker with lineups or substitution patterns all the time. So what!!! I say its what makes him one of the best coaches in all of basketball. And if you don't think so, just watch. My guess is after his gig with the C's ends he is asked to coach Team USA someday.

I just want to point out that your entire theory is invalidated by the Mavs en route to their title last year. They CONSTANTLY made changes (throughout the playoffs, no less) to devastating effect on their opponents, including changing their starting lineup halfway through the finals and implementing a zone defense essentially out of nowhere.

So, I mean, the most recent and relevant example to our conversation says this theory doesn't hold water. Therefore, I'm gonna stick with my own crazy theory that putting your best players on the floor gives you a better chance to win than any alleged advantage gained by playing crappy players over and over again.

Exactly! I started this thread with Mavs in mind. Coach Carlisle was a wizard last year. Consistently pushing the right buttons.

Shawn Marion was late adition to starting lineup 27starts
Roddy B 27starts
Brian Cardinal 4starts
DeShawn Stevenson 54starts
Peja Stojakovic 13starts
Corey Brewer 2 starts
...........

[kozlodoev]

Also, something we haven't discussed is that the return of Pietrus made it possible for us to go small-ball with him at the 4.

But that has nothing to do with Stiemsma's play.  I completely agree that a major reason for Steamer's drop in minutes is that Doc wants to play small ball.  That's what Doc and any coach does.  They make decisions about what is best for the team.  Sometimes they work.  Sometimes they don't.  When those decisions fail, however, it's ridiculous to pretend the coach isn't exercising judgment and that a different decision couldn't have been made.

So are you claiming that "not playing Stiemsma" has failed as a rotation decision?

I haven't even considered that we have to discuss the obvious here -- that the coach calls the shots. I've never pretended Doc hasn't exercised judgement, just that his judgement was based on the fact that Stiemsma, unless he's playing against quite inferior competition, is simply not that good.

[Meadowlark_Scal]

Stiemsma has run out of steam, forgive the pun, after a couple of good games.

I seriously doubt Steamer would solve what's wrong with this team, but let's be honest about things.  Here are Stiemsma's minutes so far this season.

20
16
12
21 (starting and put up 13 pts, 7 rebs, 2 asts and 2 blks)
12
7
3
1
9
1

Again, not to say that Steamer playing more would necessarily fix anything with Boston, but to suggest he's not playing because he's not playing well is BS.  The guy played one of the best games any Celtic big has this season and after one more game was essentially in scrub duty, even though our regular starting center doesn't play over 23 minutes a game and our only other backup 5 has been hurt most of the season.

And again, this isn't to say Stiemsma would the answer to any of Boston's problems, but the reason he's not playing is simply because Doc has decided not to play him and not due to some lack of performance.  There are plenty of young players who are not doing any better then Steamer playing more minutes for teams who are as good or better than the Celtics.

Mike

That is put together nicely. Steamer has done quite well all around, and could be a very good addition to this team. Some of these guys have also forgotten injuries, like O'Neal, he is always out. Also, if you actually watch the game, and steamer off the ball, he doesn't get much passes when he is in the paint. For a long time, perk used to not get the ball either. For a while, perk was good with the ball. Steam is very solid all around, and will keep getting better...when we get a new coach....O'neal, steamer and wilcox..it is easy enough to get these guys more equal minutes..and not as charity...as a stronger lineup, for injuries, fouls..ect. Doc plays a guy 2 minutes, then he is out....pavlovic plays better than marquis, but marquis gets toooo many minutes.....