Brad Stevens on Player Development

[SHAQATTACK]

According to Scott Souza on Twitter:

#Celtics coach Brad Stevens: player development is not achieved by giving away minutes, it's by watching, learning & earning them.

I endorse this philosophy of player development.

+1

[dannyboy35]

Disagree with Brad. Trial by fire is the best way to learn in the NBA. Let players know what part of their game they need to work on

It's a nice idea but I disagree too. Playing  Pressey, who 100 percent was not part of the future was infuriating to me. Never playing Rozier anything but garbage mins until he was needed and how he played proved to me he should have received more time. Sully getting fatter playing over Ilynyk who worked his butt ifc in the off season makes Stevens stance on this a bunch of bs to me.

I'm curious who was Pressey playing over that you wanted to see or thought should have been playing more?  Similarly, who did you want to sit to give Rozier more minutes?

And sadly, Sullinger is one of the better rebounders in the league, finishing 16th in the league in DRB%, 18th in TRB% and 14th in rebounds per 36 (with Kelly never cracking the top 100 for any of those stats).  Unfortunately, the C's needed to play him, especially considering they were already a poor rebounding team finishing 20th in the league in rebound differential and 25th in DRB%.

I admire  pressey but wanted smart to be force fed minutes. I also never believed Turner was staying so viewed  him ( another guy I admire) as wasting reps that smart and Rozier could have had. Mostly smart at point but just some mns heteand there instead of all garbage until there were injuries for Rozier to get in. I didn't expect a lot for Rozier, just some.
  I do agree on Sully and his boardwork but I just never believed he was staying and I had no faith in any more development that would make him be worth more. Kelly could be dealt too but I thought he can develop. I respect some think not so much but I'm a believer .

[dannyboy35]

Time will tell on these guys. I could end up dead wrong.

[gift]

I think it's a little bit of both. Ultimately, guys need to earn their way on the court. But an eye for player development requires you to actively find opportunities for young guys where you can.

[PhoSita]

I think it's a mix.

My belief is that every player on the team apart from the unquestioned stars need to feel as though they have to keep working hard and producing in order to keep their spot.  Unless we're talking about perennial All-Stars, nobody should feel as if they are guaranteed heavy minutes.

With that said, I also think that some young guys need to be given an opportunity play through their mistakes in order to fully develop and blossom into players capable of filling a large role on a team.  Some guys have the mentality and the work ethic to go from 3rd stringer to star over 4-5 years playing behind accomplished vets who know how to play defense and take the right shots.

Other guys, I think, can come into the league, get buried on a depth chart, and never really figure out what their role in the league should be.  Somebody like James Young, for example, who was probably not actually taught how to play team basketball in high school or college, really needed to go to a team that was willing to give him minutes and have patience with him.  Build up his confidence and make him feel comfortable in a role but also hold him accountable.

I don't think all young players are going to flourish in a scenario where they feel like if they make mistakes or don't hit shots, they will be yanked quickly and relegated to the D-League. 

I think NBA teams that are smart take the mental side of things into account when they draft.  You're better off taking a less-talented guy with the makeup to succeed in the situation he's entering than drafting a guy with all the talent in the world but a poor disposition to succeed on a team that wants him to learn a certain system or bring him along slowly.


With Young, for example, I think the Celts probably drafted him expecting that they were going to be bad for at least another season.  Instead, they returned to the playoffs, and Young has never really gotten the opportunity to try to fill a void in the team's rotation.  His only hope has been beating out a more experienced or polished guy ahead of him, and I don't think he had much hope of being able to do that given how raw he was from the start.

[PhoSita]

I have been saying the exact same thing on this site for years to all the people who call for young players to get minutes. The coaches know what they are doing by making youth earn their minutes. The only thing that is accomplished by giving a young player minutes he didn't earn is to quell the thirst of fans who want to see the young players play at the expense of vets that have earned the minutes and at the expense of wins.

Exactly.  It's not NBA2k, playing young guys more doesn't just magically make them develop more

At the same time, young guys don't just magically absorb skill and experience by being around superior veteran players.

Sometimes I think there is value in playing a young guy just to see what you've got in him.  I don't believe that you can really know what sort of player you've drafted unless you see them play in a competitive NBA setting.  You can get some indications from summer league, the D-League, or pre-season, but it's all just conjecture until we watch a guy try to play a role in an actual NBA game.

Even if a guy stinks and obviously doesn't have it, that's useful information when you're building a team. 

[justice]

The 'coach not playing the young guys enough' argument has been going on for as long as I've been watching the Celtics. It used to be Jim O'Brien, then Doc, and now Brad.

Young players have every chance to earn these minutes in practice, and if they can't do it there, they won't do it in an actual game- sorry.

Being a team that's competing for a 2 or 3 seed in the Eastern Conference also doesn't allow us the luxury of simply 'testing out' the kids.

Jaylen Brown is probably going to be 3rd on our SF depth chart this year, and people need to get ready for that. He's 19, and is a bit raw. No way is he taking minutes from Crowder, and he'll likely be behind a very serviceable vet in Gerald Green, until he proves he's worthy to move up.

That's the way it should be, imo.

[Vermont Green]

I think the coach should play the best players in the combinations that give the team the best chance to win.  i think Stevens and all coaches do this.  I can't imagine a scenario where you would sit a better player to give "development time" to a young player.

I also don't think coaches get the ability call wrong very much.  If they aren't putting a guy out there it is for a good reason.  There can be rare instances where style of play or whatever may force a coach to stubbornly not play someone (the George Karl type of coach).

The arguments for Rozier or Young getting minutes over whoever are hard to understand.  They simply were not better players and in my opinion should not have been put on the court just because that might be better players someday.

[BitterJim]

I have been saying the exact same thing on this site for years to all the people who call for young players to get minutes. The coaches know what they are doing by making youth earn their minutes. The only thing that is accomplished by giving a young player minutes he didn't earn is to quell the thirst of fans who want to see the young players play at the expense of vets that have earned the minutes and at the expense of wins.

Exactly.  It's not NBA2k, playing young guys more doesn't just magically make them develop more

At the same time, young guys don't just magically absorb skill and experience by being around superior veteran players.

Sometimes I think there is value in playing a young guy just to see what you've got in him.  I don't believe that you can really know what sort of player you've drafted unless you see them play in a competitive NBA setting.  You can get some indications from summer league, the D-League, or pre-season, but it's all just conjecture until we watch a guy try to play a role in an actual NBA game.

Even if a guy stinks and obviously doesn't have it, that's useful information when you're building a team.

I think Brad has done a good job of doing that.  As bdm860 said earlier, there were stretches last year where young guys (namely Young, Hunter, and Rozier) got plenty of consistent minutes.  Once it was obvious that Young and Hunter were nowhere near ready (and certainly not good enough to take minutes away from guys like ET, AB, and Smart), why should they continue to get minutes?  They should be improving during practice (where their mistakes can be corrected immediately) and on their own time, not during time that veterans have earned

Rozier is actually a great example of how Brad was right.  He didn't get force-fed minutes, but he took advantage of the minutes he got and was always ready, which was huge when Bradley got injured.  Maybe he would have developed a bit faster if he had played more minutes over Smart, ET, Bradley, and IT, but that still would have been a net negative for the season

[dannyboy35]

I'd disagree Brad was right. He was out of options and it was more like, " oh wow. This dude can play.@

[BitterJim]

I'd disagree Brad was right. He was out of options and it was more like, " oh wow. This dude can play.@

So you don't think that Brad had any idea of what Rozier was capable of? He's an NBA coach and has watched him playing against like IT and Smart countless times (plus the 300+ minutes he played in the regular season.  Brad knew what Terry was capable of doing out there, which is why he played him over Young and Hunter

[Bobshot]

Stevens is getting plenty of visibility in the media for seemingly overachieving with the Celtics. He has developed a rep as one of the best game coaches in the league.

However, many fans were aghast when he started Zeller and Lee at the 4-5 in the first two games last season. It took about 10 minutes to realize they were overmatched defensively, and had to be taken out. That experiment lasted a couple of games which they lost.

I've also been disturbed by some quotes from him: he never had good bigs at Butler--they went to the bigger schools--so he had to adapt with smaller guys up front. The other is he was very happy the Celtics re-signed Zeller, because he does a lot of things well--things related to pick and roll, etc. Zeller has good hands and can shoot around the key, but he is next to useless defensively against more athletic bigs. He is a classic backup center.

So, that's where me and the coach part ways. He is a game magician--to be sure. But I'm not sure he knows what it takes to win a Championship in the NBA. He'll have to learn from Danny.

[otherdave]

What was Brad supposed to say publicly to the reporter... "I am disappointed that Danny resigned that bum.  He only signed Todd as a possible future trade chip..." 

[guava_wrench]

This is true. But a lot of times I feel Brad doesn't give young players the opportunity to earn those minutes or those roles on the team. Maybe it's because they're just bad (like Young), but then again, you have to see whether they work out or not, right? Or am I being too nice to the young guys?

We often hear this about players who end up only sticking around one or two years and go elsewhere while still young. How many become something?

Just giving away minutes to over-matched players isn't the way to develop unless your team has no talent. We regularly see people complaining about a veteran getting minutes over a young guy but then, two years later, the veteran is still on the Celtics and the young guy is fringe NBA.

[alldaboston]

Stevens is getting plenty of visibility in the media for seemingly overachieving with the Celtics. He has developed a rep as one of the best game coaches in the league.

However, many fans were aghast when he started Zeller and Lee at the 4-5 in the first two games last season. It took about 10 minutes to realize they were overmatched defensively, and had to be taken out. That experiment lasted a couple of games which they lost.

I've also been disturbed by some quotes from him: he never had good bigs at Butler--they went to the bigger schools--so he had to adapt with smaller guys up front. The other is he was very happy the Celtics re-signed Zeller, because he does a lot of things well--things related to pick and roll, etc. Zeller has good hands and can shoot around the key, but he is next to useless defensively against more athletic bigs. He is a classic backup center.

So, that's where me and the coach part ways. He is a game magician--to be sure. But I'm not sure he knows what it takes to win a Championship in the NBA. He'll have to learn from Danny.

Um...im confused. You don't think he has what it takes to win it all in the NBA because he made a mistake in his starting lineup last season but then fixed it, wasn't able to recruit good bigs in college, and because he was happy we resigned a backup center who is also a great example of someone who knows his role and doesn't complain?