Doc Rivers

[WedmanIsMyHero]

Perkins has played reasonably well the last few games -- I hope you are right.

Can Brown play that many minutes?  He is not the youngest guy in the world and he has already played quite a few minutes in the playoffs.  I think your theory makes some sense, but my suspicion is Brown can't handle that kind of load.

I think the Celtics need to pull Perkins out earlier in the 1st and 3rd for PJ.  (say with 5-6 minutes left in the quarter)


Then, instead of bringing in Powe or Davis to start the 2nd/4th, bring Perkins back in for KG. 


Use a three man rotation down low (much like the three man rotation at SG/SF)   

The 4th big man is only for foul trouble insurance.



And I think the Celtics are using the wrong 4th big man.  They needs someone to be able to step in is little minutes, play good team defense.   


If that does describe Scali, I don't know what does.  This is the perfect role for him.  In long enough to help, but not so long that his weaknesses are exposed. 

I just keep thinking of the defensive numbers Roy pointed out when Scali was starting this year. 

That would only work out to somewhere between 18-22 minutes a game.  Perkins would pick up more minutes.  (36-38 minutes)

[nickagneta]

Can anyone please point out to me where the 8th and 9th players on any other remaining playoff team is making an impact as to the final result of wins and losses in this playoff season?

Is Ronny Turiaf and Jordan Farmer winning or losing any games for LA? What about Barry and Udoka in San Antonio or Hunter and Ratliff in Detroit?

None of these players are impacting the final results of any of their teams games. Yet when Doc plays around with switching Sam/Eddie and Leon/Baby in the 8th and 9th positions people here go ape.

Odd timing, Nick, after Brent Barry had 20+ points last night and had the opportunity to win the game on a last minute shot.

Didn't Powe contribute to a number of wins during the season?  Powe scored in double digits in 24 of the 56 games he played in, including 19 of the 24 games he played 15+ minutes in.  He pulled down 8+ boards 10 times.  How is this not a guy who can influence games?

(By the way, BBD had 4 double digit games, and eight games with 8+ rebounds, despite playing more minutes overall and approximately the same number of minutes on a per game basis).

It's just strange to me to argue that neither Powe nor BBD makes a difference, when Powe made a difference in so many games during the regular season.

Well, I didn't see last night's game but I guess Barry coming out like that makes me look like an ass. But in the same light, San Antonio's bench is probably the deepest, qualitywise of the 4 remaining teams. Manu starts for any other team and Barry is a sixth or seventh guy on the other teams.

And yes, Powe contributed a lot during the season to winning games. But regular season games. This is playoff basketball and as many on this site, I think including you Roy, have said, playoff basketball is a different animal.

Take a look at Powe's game logs this year, he had only two, maybe three games where he made a major difference on the final results against any winning team, New Orleans and Houston. Other than that, find a great game against a playoff team where he was such a huge difference in the game. Scan the game log. Doc didn't play him against good teams or when he did play him against good teams, Leon struggled.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/gamelog?playerId=3023

I understand that Baby only had one game like that all year(Detroit), but look at the better teams. Doc gave him minutes in those games. Considering that Baby's best game all season was against Detroit, there you go, that's why he's playing.

But again, if he decided Powe, fine. I just don't think it's going to make a difference in the games final results. This team wins and loses based on how well Rondo, Pierce, KG, and Allen play. Not Eddie, Sam, Leon, or Baby.

And none of the bench players have actually played us out of a win either except possibly as an entire collective group.

[Chris]

Perkins has played reasonably well the last few games -- I hope you are right.

Can Brown play that many minutes?  He is not the youngest guy in the world and he has already played quite a few minutes in the playoffs.  I think your theory makes some sense, but my suspicion is Brown can't handle that kind of load.

I think the Celtics need to pull Perkins out earlier in the 1st and 3rd for PJ.  (say with 5-6 minutes left in the quarter)


Then, instead of bringing in Powe or Davis to start the 2nd/4th, bring Perkins back in for KG. 


Use a three man rotation down low (much like the three man rotation at SG/SF)   

The 4th big man is only for foul trouble insurance.



And I think the Celtics are using the wrong 4th big man.  They needs someone to be able to step in is little minutes, play good team defense.   


If that does describe Scali, I don't know what does.  This is the perfect role for him.  In long enough to help, but not so long that his weaknesses are exposed. 

I just keep thinking of the defensive numbers Roy pointed out when Scali was starting this year. 

That would only work out to somewhere between 18-22 minutes a game.  Perkins would pick up more minutes.  (36-38 minutes)

That is underselling it.  Perk has been one of the best players on the floor over the last two games.  Without his defense and rebounding/blocking out, the C's would have been absolutely blown out in game 4, and he also was a major difference maker in game 3.

I agree completely with Wdleehi's plan for the bigs.  I think that would solve the problem of having to use Davis or Powe, since neither of them are ideal against this team.

[Chris]

Chris -- you really think if the Celtics win it means Doc did a good job and if they lose he didn't? 

I think it is a better way of determining a good vs. bad job than just saying "I would have done it differently, so therefore Doc is a bad coach".

Personally, I believe that the coach has very little to do with the outcome of games in the NBA (at least when you get to this level).  They can influence them a bit, but it is a very small amount.  Generally speaking, if your three stars are all underperforming in a game, and your #4 option looks like it is his first time stepping on an NBA floor, the coach is not going to be able to salvage the game.


I also don't think Doc can possibly be responsible for the C's losing this series, because at the moment, it is clear to me that Flip is making just as many, if not more bad decisions (Seriously, putting Theo in before Maxiell?).  If anything, they cancel each other out.

Eddie sustains the tempo at a higher level, attacks the basket more effectively, and is a greater 3-point threat.

Although I think this is true against most teams, it is not true against Detroit, and this was proven in the first two games.  Detroit pressures the ball so much, that the C's were not able to get the offense setup until half of the shotclock had run down when House was in there.  They had to resort to having Pierce bring the ball up, which did not help the pace of the offense either, and led to several turnovers.

Although I think Eddie can be effective playing off the ball, he is not at all a good option as the PG in this series.

To have Cassell on the floor at any time, especially against Detroit, makes very little sense.

On Paper Cassell is a much better fit against Detroit.  He has more size to stay with their bigger guards, is a much better ballhandler, and he can create his own shot (which is important against Detroits quick rotations).  However, he hasn't been able to hit the broadside of a barn, and when his shot is off, then he is pretty useless.

So basically the C's simply have no choice but to hope Cassell starts hitting his shots, or have Pierce play backup PG with House at the SG spot.

[Brickowski]

Of course they have a choice.  Put Cassell on the bench and either live with House or play Rondo 48 minutes.

[Roy Hobbs]

So basically the C's simply have no choice but to hope Cassell starts hitting his shots, or have Pierce play backup PG with House at the SG spot.

You can still have House be the point guard, and defend the point guard position, while making Pierce a "point forward".  It's what this team has done for years; it's not like Delonte was running the show while he was here.  It's what Cleveland does with Lebron, and primarily what the Lakers do with Kobe.  I don't see why it's such an unrealistic or undesirable option.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

I am not saying "I would have done it differently, so Doc screwed up".  My point is just that a framework for evaluation that works entirely on post-facto logic is a bit silly.  Consider again the example I gave you.  The coach that, according to knowledgeable observers/insiders, gets the most out of his players but the team just doesn't have talent versus the coach who does nothing and may make it harder for the team to win, but the team is so talented it wins anyways.  Who is the better coach?  According to your logic, it is the latter coach.

Now if your real point is that the coach doesn't matter, so who cares, that is a different thing.

Chris -- you really think if the Celtics win it means Doc did a good job and if they lose he didn't? 

I think it is a better way of determining a good vs. bad job than just saying "I would have done it differently, so therefore Doc is a bad coach".

Personally, I believe that the coach has very little to do with the outcome of games in the NBA (at least when you get to this level).  They can influence them a bit, but it is a very small amount.  Generally speaking, if your three stars are all underperforming in a game, and your #4 option looks like it is his first time stepping on an NBA floor, the coach is not going to be able to salvage the game.


I also don't think Doc can possibly be responsible for the C's losing this series, because at the moment, it is clear to me that Flip is making just as many, if not more bad decisions (Seriously, putting Theo in before Maxiell?).  If anything, they cancel each other out.

Eddie sustains the tempo at a higher level, attacks the basket more effectively, and is a greater 3-point threat.

Although I think this is true against most teams, it is not true against Detroit, and this was proven in the first two games.  Detroit pressures the ball so much, that the C's were not able to get the offense setup until half of the shotclock had run down when House was in there.  They had to resort to having Pierce bring the ball up, which did not help the pace of the offense either, and led to several turnovers.

Although I think Eddie can be effective playing off the ball, he is not at all a good option as the PG in this series.

To have Cassell on the floor at any time, especially against Detroit, makes very little sense.

On Paper Cassell is a much better fit against Detroit.  He has more size to stay with their bigger guards, is a much better ballhandler, and he can create his own shot (which is important against Detroits quick rotations).  However, he hasn't been able to hit the broadside of a barn, and when his shot is off, then he is pretty useless.

So basically the C's simply have no choice but to hope Cassell starts hitting his shots, or have Pierce play backup PG with House at the SG spot.

[nickagneta]

I am not saying "I would have done it differently, so Doc screwed up".  My point is just that a framework for evaluation that works entirely on post-facto logic is a bit silly.  Consider again the example I gave you.  The coach that, according to knowledgeable observers/insiders, gets the most out of his players but the team just doesn't have talent versus the coach who does nothing and may make it harder for the team to win, but the team is so talented it wins anyways.  Who is the better coach?   According to your logic, it is the latter coach.

Now if your real point is that the coach doesn't matter, so who cares, that is a different thing.

The answer to your question, in my mind, is quite easy. The coach who wins because ultimately he'll have a head coaching job a lot longer than the guy who loses.

Good coaches that get the most out of their talent and yet lose often are fired for the teams win-loss record and then find it very difficult to find a job. If they do happen to find a job and the same thing happens where he is maximizing his team's potential and yet not getting the GM's desired and needed goal of winning, he will again be fired. He will then probably not get a third chance and his head coaching days in the NBA will be over.

The coach that has talent but might not be the best coach in the world according to "experts" will always have a job as long as that team wins. And since he would have shown that he can coach winning teams, will most likely have a long NBA head coaching career.

NBA GMs and owners care about wins and losses. By all accounts the "experts" say Avery Johnson was a good coach and he has an obscene winning percentage, yet he was fired because he couldn't maximize his team overwhelming talent when it really mattered. When winning counted most, he lost and is now not head coaching because he lost. Good coach not winning means no job. But he's a heck of a coach.

So ultimately evaluations of coaches needs to be put into context.

Is he a good coach because he wins and will hence get rehired again and again because he's proven he can win versus the guy that loses, regardless of what he is doing with his talent, and then can't find a head coaching job?

Or are you discussing good and bad in the management of being a head coach and getting the most of everything you have regardless of the outcome?

Or are you just judging by what happens from the time of tip-off to the final horn?

Doc has won in two different places. Doc has had some bad talent and maximized his talents level with wins, both here and in Orlando. One year in Orlando he had a .500 record with a team of Darrell Armstrong(the team's leading scorer) and a bunch of nobodies.

He maxed out his team talent both this year and last. This year he had good talent, got 66 wins and had almost zero games where the team just didn't play there hearts out. Last year he had no talent and an injured superstar and a rash of other injuries(Wally, Perk, Al, West) yet that team was never out of any games and played their hearts out. But got 24 wins.

But many here consider Doc a bad coach because of his substitutions and x's and o's.

So which is it? Is Doc a good or bad coach?

Is he good? He maxes out his teams playing potential, he's been to the postseason a number of times, he has an above .500 career long coaching record, and has his team 6 wins from a championship.

Is he bad? His rotations are head scratching weird, his substitutions erratic and he isn't the best guy to have dreaming up an offensive scheme.

Ultimately he must be a good coach because after Boston, he will get another head coaching job.

[Chris]

So basically the C's simply have no choice but to hope Cassell starts hitting his shots, or have Pierce play backup PG with House at the SG spot.

You can still have House be the point guard, and defend the point guard position, while making Pierce a "point forward".  It's what this team has done for years; it's not like Delonte was running the show while he was here.  It's what Cleveland does with Lebron, and primarily what the Lakers do with Kobe.  I don't see why it's such an unrealistic or undesirable option.

I am not saying it is unrealistic.  I expect it to be the what they do if Cassell doesn't perform early tonight (or maybe House might come out there right away).  I am just saying that neither option is ideal. 

This is what they did for the first two games in the series, and there were a lot of calls of "where's Cassell???"

[Chris]

I am not saying "I would have done it differently, so Doc screwed up".  My point is just that a framework for evaluation that works entirely on post-facto logic is a bit silly.  Consider again the example I gave you.  The coach that, according to knowledgeable observers/insiders, gets the most out of his players but the team just doesn't have talent versus the coach who does nothing and may make it harder for the team to win, but the team is so talented it wins anyways.  Who is the better coach?  According to your logic, it is the latter coach.

Now if your real point is that the coach doesn't matter, so who cares, that is a different thing.

Wait, so what is your argument?  Are you saying that knowledgable insiders are saying that Doc does not get the most out of his players?  Who are these knowlegdeable insiders.

My point is that is very hard to quantify good coaching.  You can certainly analyze it, but then it is all up to personal opinion.

The only way to actually quantify it is by looking at the results. 

Otherwise, all it is is an endless argument that no-one can win.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, because it is what makes these messageboards fun.  But I just find it frustrating when so many people try to act like it is a fact that Doc is a bad coach, when it is not a fact, it is an opinion.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

No no – my example of the great coach that gets the most out of his players, but whose players lack talent, versus the bad coach that gets little out of his players, but his players are great, was not meant to be a shot at Doc.  I apologize if it read that way.  I’m serious.  I really meant it as a hypothetical.

What I was trying to get at is that wins and losses are not the only way to evaluate whether a coach does a good job or not.  I agree with you that it is hard to quantify.

You had said wins and losses are how you evaluate coaches.  I was pointing out a hypothetical in which wins and losses might not be the best way to evaluate the quality of a coach.  I then asked what other ways you would think are valid for judging a coach.

I am trying to move the discussion forward here in a way that can perhaps help us clarify how we should evaluate (as non-expert fans, to the extent we can, all those limitations taken into account) whether Doc is doing a good job.

I am not saying "I would have done it differently, so Doc screwed up".  My point is just that a framework for evaluation that works entirely on post-facto logic is a bit silly.  Consider again the example I gave you.  The coach that, according to knowledgeable observers/insiders, gets the most out of his players but the team just doesn't have talent versus the coach who does nothing and may make it harder for the team to win, but the team is so talented it wins anyways.  Who is the better coach?  According to your logic, it is the latter coach.

Now if your real point is that the coach doesn't matter, so who cares, that is a different thing.

Wait, so what is your argument?  Are you saying that knowledgable insiders are saying that Doc does not get the most out of his players?  Who are these knowlegdeable insiders.

My point is that is very hard to quantify good coaching.  You can certainly analyze it, but then it is all up to personal opinion.

The only way to actually quantify it is by looking at the results. 

Otherwise, all it is is an endless argument that no-one can win.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, because it is what makes these messageboards fun.  But I just find it frustrating when so many people try to act like it is a fact that Doc is a bad coach, when it is not a fact, it is an opinion.

[Chris]

Well, I have to say, Doc coached pretty close to a perfect game last night (at least as close as I have ever seen from him).

The rotation was perfect IMO.  He shortened it, and he did not let any of the bench players kill them.

He also was perfect in the last couple of minutes.  He did an excellent job with subbing for defense/rebounds/foul shooting, and had them foul at all the right times.

This was also amplified by how bad Flip Saunders was.  He had found something that worked.  Lindsay Hunter's pressure almost singlehandedly got them back in the game...so Flip pulled him.  Then he had the perfect opportunity to put him back in for crunch time when Mcdyess fouled out, and he opted not to.  I feel confident that if they had kept Hunter in, the C's would have had a lot more trouble winning that game last night.

[Roy Hobbs]

Well, I have to say, Doc coached pretty close to a perfect game last night (at least as close as I have ever seen from him).

The rotation was perfect IMO.  He shortened it, and he did not let any of the bench players kill them.

He also was perfect in the last couple of minutes.  He did an excellent job with subbing for defense/rebounds/foul shooting, and had them foul at all the right times.

A few concerns, prior to Game 6:

1) Posey and P.J. were both pretty ineffective (-15 and -11, respectively).  Should we consider going to Powe or somebody else?

2) Perk and Rondo tired a bit down the stretch.  How do we find them brief moments of rest?

3) The team still can't beat a simple zone press.  This should have been emphasized after Game 3, and certainly should be after last night.  How can the team be this unprepared for something Detroit already showed them?

I don't blame Doc for points 1 and 2, I'd just like to see him make adjustments prior to Game 6.  Overall, the strategy of riding the starters is a good one, especially since Sam coughed the ball up almost immediately after being put in the game.  I like that Doc is willing to stand up to Cassell and discipline him for carelessness (and getting the ball stolen from you in the backcourt is sheer carelessness).

Point 3...  well, that's coaching.  The players need to execute, but they were making the exact same mistakes over and over.  Running the pick-and-roll in that situation is just crazy, and I can't imagine that the players dreamed it up on their own.  I can't for the life of me understand it, and it needs to be corrected immediately.

Oh, and we started fouling too early.  I've got to think that was Rondo's mistake, though, rather than Doc's.

[WedmanIsMyHero]

I have to admit, Doc did a solid job. 

I worry about minutes and rest.  I wonder if they should just concede Game 6 to get some rest for Game 7!  This rotation worked very well, but it has to be very taxing on the players.

EDIT: Normally the announcing teams love Doc, but they were hitting the Celtics pretty hard last night on play calling, like the pick-and-rolls and playing "not to lose" in general.  It was just disheartening to see the Celtics lose their aggressiveness.  As Wilbon (I think) said after the game, if I am a Detroit fan, there are a lot of positives to take out of this.

And not to look too far ahead, but can you imagine if the Celtics played a 4th quarter like that in the finals against a team like the Lakers or the Spurs.  That would be a loss.

Well, I have to say, Doc coached pretty close to a perfect game last night (at least as close as I have ever seen from him).

The rotation was perfect IMO.  He shortened it, and he did not let any of the bench players kill them.

He also was perfect in the last couple of minutes.  He did an excellent job with subbing for defense/rebounds/foul shooting, and had them foul at all the right times.

This was also amplified by how bad Flip Saunders was.  He had found something that worked.  Lindsay Hunter's pressure almost singlehandedly got them back in the game...so Flip pulled him.  Then he had the perfect opportunity to put him back in for crunch time when Mcdyess fouled out, and he opted not to.  I feel confident that if they had kept Hunter in, the C's would have had a lot more trouble winning that game last night.

[footey]

I thought Doc's best move was pulling Cassell out after he turned the ball over to Hunter.  Doc sent a clear message that if you did not produce, you were out.

I think the key thing going forward, is Doc making it clear to all players that Rondo runs the offense, especially in the 4th quarter. We turn the ball over less, are more inclined to get transition buckets, and get better ball movement.  If Rondo has the confidence to take charge, especially in the 4th quarter, I think we have a VG chance of winning game 6.