Simmons - New Column Bashing Doc, Sam, Big 3

[Hollywood]

For some reason I have a vision of Doc eating a sandwich throughout this entire article

DOC: Have any of you even played in the Finals?
(Takes giant bite of turkey sandwich)

ALLEN-GARNETT-PIERCE: No.

DOC: (mouth-full, spitting turkey) Really? Wow!

It is pretty vivid

[teddykgb]

I've got to be one of the biggest Eddie House fans on the planet, but this notion that Sam Cassell is killing us is absolutely absurd.  I'm so tired of reading people who know nothing about basketball telling me how Sam Cassell is killing our offense, or waxing about how incredible our 2nd team offense was prior to his arrival (it wasn't).  Cassell has had a few huge games for us in the playoffs, shooting us into a few games we had no part being in. 

If you're going to question the knowledge of "people who know nothing about basketball", please at least try to be accurate.

Which games constitute the "few huge games for us in the playoffs ... [which] we had no part being in"? 

Sam has had exactly one good game where he was actually a key contributor in a close game: Game 1 against Cleveland.  That game is hardly "a few", which implies at least three.  All of Sam's other good games have come 1) at home, and 2) in blowouts.  I'm not sure what games you're talking about when you refer to "a few games we had no part being in".

Secondly, Sam has been atrocious in a number of close losses.  We have participated in four games which we lost by 10 points or fewer, plus Game 4, which was closer than the final score suggests.  Sam has shoot 25% or below in all five of those games.  He has two assists or fewer in all five of those games, as well.

I'd say, on average, Sam has performed pretty poorly in games where we've needed him the most.  In close games, he's had one very positive performance, and five poor-to-terrible ones.

You can't discount the blowouts because they became blowouts--sam had a part in making them blowouts.  In game 2 he was +16 on the floor with 9 points.  We were down 21-9 when he entered the game...he came in and hit some HUGE shots for a team that was really struggling, and played the rest of the half, which included us closing that gap and taking a lead.  Dismissing this performance because we ultimately blew them out is ridiculous, he saved our asses in this game, so we've already got 2 games in this series...which happpen to be our only two wins.  If you really want me to go back to the Atl series I can, but it really is pointless.

Now if you want to say that our ability to win has been alrgely predicated on our ability to get production out of the PG spot, then I'd agree.  ON the games where Sam isn't hitting his shots and Rondo is not a major factor, we tend to really struggle.  We need one of them to be firing on all cylinders to win a game right now.

[Roy Hobbs]

You can't discount the blowouts because they became blowouts--sam had a part in making them blowouts.  In game 2 he was +16 on the floor with 9 points.  We were down 21-9 when he entered the game...he came in and hit some HUGE shots for a team that was really struggling, and played the rest of the half, which included us closing that gap and taking a lead.  Dismissing this performance because we ultimately blew them out is ridiculous, he saved our asses in this game, so we've already got 2 games in this series...which happpen to be our only two wins.  If you really want me to go back to the Atl series I can, but it really is pointless.

Now if you want to say that our ability to win has been alrgely predicated on our ability to get production out of the PG spot, then I'd agree.  ON the games where Sam isn't hitting his shots and Rondo is not a major factor, we tend to really struggle.  We need one of them to be firing on all cylinders to win a game right now.

I find it hard to believe that in a game we won by 16 (and in which we were up at least 22), Sam Cassell's 4-for-12 shooting performance was the key factor in that win.  I certainly don't accept that Game 2 was in any way a game we had "no part being in".

Regardless, it doesn't really matter.  Sam has been atrocious in losses (again, sub-25% in all five games), and the coach isn't going to do anything to change that up.

[Who]

I've got to be one of the biggest Eddie House fans on the planet, but this notion that Sam Cassell is killing us is absolutely absurd.  I'm so tired of reading people who know nothing about basketball telling me how Sam Cassell is killing our offense, or waxing about how incredible our 2nd team offense was prior to his arrival (it wasn't).  Cassell has had a few huge games for us in the playoffs, shooting us into a few games we had no part being in. 

If you're going to question the knowledge of "people who know nothing about basketball", please at least try to be accurate.

Which games constitute the "few huge games for us in the playoffs ... [which] we had no part being in"? 

Sam has had exactly one good game where he was actually a key contributor in a close game: Game 1 against Cleveland.  That game is hardly "a few", which implies at least three.  All of Sam's other good games have come 1) at home, and 2) in blowouts.  I'm not sure what games you're talking about when you refer to "a few games we had no part being in".

Secondly, Sam has been atrocious in a number of close losses.  We have participated in four games which we lost by 10 points or fewer, plus Game 4, which was closer than the final score suggests.  Sam has shoot 25% or below in all five of those games.  He has two assists or fewer in all five of those games, as well.

I'd say, on average, Sam has performed pretty poorly in games where we've needed him the most.  In close games, he's had one very positive performance, and five poor-to-terrible ones.

Game Two?

Remember Sammy coming off the bench and leading the turnaround. That we were down double digits and he brought the game back. That the starters were playing terrible, he came in, and controlled the rest of the half. That he was the best player in the building for the first half. That the Celtics regained the lead while he was on the floor. He was the single biggest reason we won game two and the biggest reason we had a lead instead of coming into halftime in a huge hole. Then the starters came back in the third quarter and turned the game into a blowout.

He's the backup point guard and he's saved the team twice in this series, that's pretty darn good.

Without Sammy in this series we would have down 3-1 and I don't have a clue what would have happened in Game Two but it didn't look good until he came in and took over.

[teddykgb]

You can't discount the blowouts because they became blowouts--sam had a part in making them blowouts.  In game 2 he was +16 on the floor with 9 points.  We were down 21-9 when he entered the game...he came in and hit some HUGE shots for a team that was really struggling, and played the rest of the half, which included us closing that gap and taking a lead.  Dismissing this performance because we ultimately blew them out is ridiculous, he saved our asses in this game, so we've already got 2 games in this series...which happpen to be our only two wins.  If you really want me to go back to the Atl series I can, but it really is pointless.

Now if you want to say that our ability to win has been alrgely predicated on our ability to get production out of the PG spot, then I'd agree.  ON the games where Sam isn't hitting his shots and Rondo is not a major factor, we tend to really struggle.  We need one of them to be firing on all cylinders to win a game right now.

I find it hard to believe that in a game we won by 16 (and in which we were up at least 22), Sam Cassell's 4-for-12 shooting performance was the key factor in that win.  I certainly don't accept that Game 2 was in any way a game we had "no part being in".

Regardless, it doesn't really matter.  Sam has been atrocious in losses (again, sub-25% in all five games), and the coach isn't going to do anything to change that up.

Did you watch that game? We were down 21-9 and on life support.  Doc already had all the subs in the game.  Nobody could make a shot, and the entire 2nd unit was terrified of shooting.  Rondo was turning the ball over like he could get a triple double with TOs, and we looked completely lost.  Sam came in and made shots, compeltely turned the game around.  I don't care what happened in the 3rd and 4th Quarter, there is no way we win Game 2 of this series without Sam Cassel's 2nd Quarter.  We'd ahve been down by 25 at the half, the team was playing terrible and he flat out shot them out of it, with a lot of help from Leon Powe.

[Roy Hobbs]

I've got to be one of the biggest Eddie House fans on the planet, but this notion that Sam Cassell is killing us is absolutely absurd.  I'm so tired of reading people who know nothing about basketball telling me how Sam Cassell is killing our offense, or waxing about how incredible our 2nd team offense was prior to his arrival (it wasn't).  Cassell has had a few huge games for us in the playoffs, shooting us into a few games we had no part being in. 

If you're going to question the knowledge of "people who know nothing about basketball", please at least try to be accurate.

Which games constitute the "few huge games for us in the playoffs ... [which] we had no part being in"? 

Sam has had exactly one good game where he was actually a key contributor in a close game: Game 1 against Cleveland.  That game is hardly "a few", which implies at least three.  All of Sam's other good games have come 1) at home, and 2) in blowouts.  I'm not sure what games you're talking about when you refer to "a few games we had no part being in".

Secondly, Sam has been atrocious in a number of close losses.  We have participated in four games which we lost by 10 points or fewer, plus Game 4, which was closer than the final score suggests.  Sam has shoot 25% or below in all five of those games.  He has two assists or fewer in all five of those games, as well.

I'd say, on average, Sam has performed pretty poorly in games where we've needed him the most.  In close games, he's had one very positive performance, and five poor-to-terrible ones.

Game Two?

Remember Sammy coming off the bench and leading the turnaround. That we were down double digits and he brought the game back. That the starters were playing terrible, he came in, and controlled the rest of the half. That he was the best player in the building for the first half. That the Celtics regained the lead while he was on the floor. He was the single biggest reason we won game two and the biggest reason we had a lead instead of coming into halftime in a huge hole. Then the starters came back in the third quarter and turned the game into a blowout.

He's the backup point guard and he's saved the team twice in this series, that's pretty darn good.

Without Sammy in this series we would have down 3-1 and I don't have a clue what would have happened in Game Two but it didn't look good until he came in and took over.

See my post above.  I just don't buy that.  Powe and Posey were huge during the second quarter.  The team went on a +12 run with Rondo in at the beginning of the second half that really opened things up.  Sam was definitely a contributor in that game, but to attribute the win to him?  I'm not seeing it. 

[Roy Hobbs]

Did you watch that game? I don't care what happened in the 3rd and 4th Quarter, there is no way we win Game 2 of this series without Sam Cassel's 2nd Quarter. 

And I just don't buy that.  I attribute the run the team went on as much to Powe and Posey, and the great defense the entire unit played, as I do to Cassell.  He was definitely a positive factor, but to attribute the win to him?  That's just nonsense.

Anyway, you're not going to convince me that on balance, the team wouldn't be better off working House into the rotation in games where it's clear Sam is struggling.  Doc relies upon Sam too much, and that's been a problem more times than it has been a positive.

By the way, to morph into my moderator shoes for a moment:  knock it off with the "did you watch the game" and "people who know nothing about basketball" cracks.  People can have contrary opinions on here without you questioning their mental acumen or observation skills. 

[teddykgb]

Oh, I would agree with that.  At this point Cassell is a role player, and you can expect him to contribute only so much.

I'd just rephrase it as a need for production out of PG, and I think House could very well contribute, especially in games where EITHER PG isn't hitting many shots.  It's up to Doc to find that balance and try them out to get there, and he's terrible at it.

[paintitgreen]

I wouldn't necessarily attribute the Game 2 win to Cassell, I think it's very rare for one player to decide a game, but I agree with teddy, he came in at a very important juncture and helped, along with Posey and Powe, to turn the game around. Our first unit was getting flat out beat by Cleveland, and that second unit, of which he was an important part, gave us the lead. It extended in the third quarter when Ray Allen got going, but without that 2nd quarter, we could've easily been down 6 or 7 at the half (like we were after the first quarter) and who knows whether Allen would've turned it on. Cassell was huge in that game and to entirely blame losses on his short stretches of bad play in a loss while not giving him a share of credit for short stretches of very good play in a win is hypocritical.

And honestly, I simply can't attribute the Game 2 loss to a guy who played 14 minutes. I agree he should not have been in there when his shot wasn't falling but everybody who's knocking Cassell is acting like the offense is flowing great without him but he just sticks a wrench in the machinery. That's completely untrue.

Rondo is being left alone and like somebody pointed out, when he gets the ball, he has no confidence to shoot so he pump fakes nobody and the defense resets. Then he goes off the dribble, down toward the baseline, but has been blocked so many times in these playoffs that he generally just runs below the basket and looks for somebody to kick out to. I love Rondo, but he's playing horribly, too. Allen is not taking or making shots. Pierce isn't even trying to penetrate because Lebron is overpowering him on that end of the court. And KG is not taking it in strong, particularly in second halfs. None of that has anything to do with Sam Cassell. That has to do with a poorly designed and executed offensive game plan.

And I have some love for House, but do people really think he's gonna penetrate against anybody? He's a catch and shoot player. I agree it's probably time to give him some burn because Rondo and Cassell have been wildly inconsistent, but the problem is not Sam Cassell. The problem is the complete lack of ball movement, regardless of who's on the court.

[quidinqui33]

I typically enjoy reading Simmon's articles because he is pretty funny, but the guy is a constant contradiction.

Last year he wrote several articles about how teams were tanking and something needed to be done, and then when the celts didn't win the lotto, he said the system should be changed to favor the bad teams even more. Huh?

He does this kind of stuff all the time, especially when it comes to the Celtics.

Let's see...the Spurs/Hornets are 3-2 with the home team winning all games, the Lakers/Jazz are 2-2 with the home team winning all games, and the Celts/Cavs are 2-2 with the home team winning all of their games yet he decides to use his power as a national media figure to throw the celtics (his favorite team) collectively under the bus.  Yet, he makes fun of Doc for throwing players under the bus, which isn't really what Doc did.  Real nice.

I agree, the team is not playing well, particularly on offense but this is getting ridiculous.  I think alot of celt fans have forgotten what it means to be in the playoffs.  You don't go 4-0 or 4-1 in every series.  Sometimes it's a dogfight and the only thing that can get your team through this is fan support.

[Who]

I've got to be one of the biggest Eddie House fans on the planet, but this notion that Sam Cassell is killing us is absolutely absurd.  I'm so tired of reading people who know nothing about basketball telling me how Sam Cassell is killing our offense, or waxing about how incredible our 2nd team offense was prior to his arrival (it wasn't).  Cassell has had a few huge games for us in the playoffs, shooting us into a few games we had no part being in. 

If you're going to question the knowledge of "people who know nothing about basketball", please at least try to be accurate.

Which games constitute the "few huge games for us in the playoffs ... [which] we had no part being in"? 

Sam has had exactly one good game where he was actually a key contributor in a close game: Game 1 against Cleveland.  That game is hardly "a few", which implies at least three.  All of Sam's other good games have come 1) at home, and 2) in blowouts.  I'm not sure what games you're talking about when you refer to "a few games we had no part being in".

Secondly, Sam has been atrocious in a number of close losses.  We have participated in four games which we lost by 10 points or fewer, plus Game 4, which was closer than the final score suggests.  Sam has shoot 25% or below in all five of those games.  He has two assists or fewer in all five of those games, as well.

I'd say, on average, Sam has performed pretty poorly in games where we've needed him the most.  In close games, he's had one very positive performance, and five poor-to-terrible ones.

Game Two?

Remember Sammy coming off the bench and leading the turnaround. That we were down double digits and he brought the game back. That the starters were playing terrible, he came in, and controlled the rest of the half. That he was the best player in the building for the first half. That the Celtics regained the lead while he was on the floor. He was the single biggest reason we won game two and the biggest reason we had a lead instead of coming into halftime in a huge hole. Then the starters came back in the third quarter and turned the game into a blowout.

He's the backup point guard and he's saved the team twice in this series, that's pretty darn good.

Without Sammy in this series we would have down 3-1 and I don't have a clue what would have happened in Game Two but it didn't look good until he came in and took over.

See my post above.  I just don't buy that.  Powe and Posey were huge during the second quarter.  The team went on a +12 run with Rondo in at the beginning of the second half that really opened things up.  Sam was definitely a contributor in that game, but to attribute the win to him?  I'm not seeing it. 

Sammy had the game on a string, he was the one dictating everything that happened. He was the one that got Leon and Posey shots, he created the play. Then he nailed his own shots. He took the pressure on his back and made the majority of the plays.

Sammy had a larger impact than anyone else off that bench. They were all good but he was the guy. He was the most dominant player on the court during the first half of game two. He started the charge, controlled the charge, and finished the charge.

[ScoobyDoo]

That was an awsome read. Alot of fun, defiantely enjoyed that one. I think as someone else said, it pretty much covers what we all feel.

[Mean Gerald Green]

For some reason I have a vision of Doc eating a sandwich throughout this entire article

DOC: Have any of you even played in the Finals?
(Takes giant bite of turkey sandwich)

ALLEN-GARNETT-PIERCE: No.

DOC: (mouth-full, spitting turkey) Really? Wow!

It is pretty vivid

That's exactly what happened.

[winsomme]

I've got to be one of the biggest Eddie House fans on the planet, but this notion that Sam Cassell is killing us is absolutely absurd.  I'm so tired of reading people who know nothing about basketball telling me how Sam Cassell is killing our offense, or waxing about how incredible our 2nd team offense was prior to his arrival (it wasn't).  Cassell has had a few huge games for us in the playoffs, shooting us into a few games we had no part being in. 

If you're going to question the knowledge of "people who know nothing about basketball", please at least try to be accurate.

Which games constitute the "few huge games for us in the playoffs ... [which] we had no part being in"? 

Sam has had exactly one good game where he was actually a key contributor in a close game: Game 1 against Cleveland.  That game is hardly "a few", which implies at least three.  All of Sam's other good games have come 1) at home, and 2) in blowouts.  I'm not sure what games you're talking about when you refer to "a few games we had no part being in".

Secondly, Sam has been atrocious in a number of close losses.  We have participated in four games which we lost by 10 points or fewer, plus Game 4, which was closer than the final score suggests.  Sam has shoot 25% or below in all five of those games.  He has two assists or fewer in all five of those games, as well.

I'd say, on average, Sam has performed pretty poorly in games where we've needed him the most.  In close games, he's had one very positive performance, and five poor-to-terrible ones.

to be fair, Sam was really big in game 2 of this series too. that first half performance of the bench (mostly Sam, Posey and Powe) was a game changer....

i am on the record of wanting House to play in this series (although i think it was more important on the road than at home), but it is not because i think Sam is a huge detriment to the team. i just think that House is the better matchup for this series.

he actually is an ideal matchup for Gibson IMO. and finding the right "matchups" is one of the key factors in winning in the playoffs...


EDIT: i see this point was later discussed in this thread, and i agree with the poster about Sam being a huge factor in game 2 also....but i also would still like to see Eddie tonight...mostly from a tempo standpoint.

[Who]

i am on the record of wanting House to play in this series (although i think it was more important on the road than at home), but it is not because i think Sam is a huge detriment to the team. i just think that House is the better matchup for this series.

he actually is an ideal matchup for Gibson IMO. and finding the right "matchups" is one of the key factors in winning in the playoffs...

Winsomme,

Why do you think House is the ideal matchup for Gibson?

I think this is the single best series matchup wise that Sam Cassell is going to get in the playoffs.

He's playing against two point guards that aren't good penetrators and who don't take advantage of Sammy's lack of footspeed. He's played solid defense for the majority of this series. Gibson has been held down by Sammy in the first three games, well below Gibson's normal impact. On the other end both are small enough for Sammy to post them and Sam's tricks have worked well against both also. This is as good as it's going to get for Sam and he's done well with it.