Doc Rivers and more on building a winner

[BballTim]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

[Thruthelookingglass]

It became especially evident during the Magic series down the stretch, without posey or someone like him we weren't able to cover Rashard Lewis.  Last year the line up of Garnett, Posey, Pierce, Allen and Rondo was especially effective in the fourth quarter.  I'm not a fan of adjusting a line up to match another teams line up, i.e what Portland did against Houston instead of putting LA out there at center to draw Yao out of the paint or how the Mavericks tried to match the Warriors in that great series two years ago but in specific situations I feel its quite important.  However, I personally didn't think we'd see such a drastic regression in the game of TA, I thought for sure he was going to be able to at least come in with defensive intensity that James brought us but its evident now that me and I guess Danny Ainge were quite wrong.  Here's hoping Grant Hill comes to town.  

TA's injury didn't help matters.  I think Doc might have been able to trust him with more  playoff minutes if he hadn't had that long injury hiatus at the end of the regular season.  As I think many of us recall, TA seems to play better with some consistent time under his belt.

[winsomme]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

[Roy Hobbs]

I want to call attention to what is the most important thing Doc Rivers told Mark Murphy in this morning's paper:

“Posey’s numbers were never justified in bringing him back, I guess,” said Rivers. “But his intangibles were absolutely justified, and we just weren’t able to replace those.”
This is a critical point that a lot of people miss: intangibles and versatility.

Basketball is not a homogeonous game, no matter how hard the sabermetricians and the fans try to make it. Everybody's not hitting, fielding and pitching like baseball.

Think of a championship team as a completed jigsaw puzzle of diverse skillsets: The 7-footer who can shoot the 20 footer, rebound and defend the rim. The 6-10 guy who works the boards and defends. The 3 who defends like crazy, attacks the rim and takes the big shots. The 2 who stretches the defense from the perimeter. The point guard who distributes the ball, attacks the rim and disrupts the other point with his defense.

Clearly, from this morning's discussion on the Doc thread, several people think a title stops there. If only KG hadn't gone down, we repeat.

Unfortunately, there are more pieces to the puzzle that have to be filled in. ANY title team at ANY level MUST have a reserve who can come in, box out, get some rebounds and preferably hit a big shot. They also have to have a versatile perimeter player who can do, among other things, stretch the defense with the outside shot, slow down the other team's best perimeter player and be able to play multiple positions. And if you don't have a point who can run your club without turning the basketball over, defend and hit a shot or two, you're in trouble. There's the issue of fatigue, which every coach fears and must manage, down to the specific roles that every player on your team must fill to be a complete champion.

Any one of these missing pieces is a hole in the championship puzzle. Put more than a couple together and you're not winning a title.

I got into a discussion on another board with a poster who said, "Rondo, Perk and Baby got better and that makes up for the loss of Posey." Those are discussions best exited, because the other guy just doesn't get it.

It's a little bit like the posters who say, "Rondo had a triple-double, so he had a great game." Yeah, but. How many points did he allow on the defensive end? How many points were scored off picks he played poorly? What was the impact of the turnovers he made?

I have eight managers for my team, because I need specific statistics to accurately evaluate my players. We keep numbers like shooting percentage inside 4 feet, points allowed on the defensive end, rebounds allowed on the defensive end, missed defensive assignments and rotations, points off positional turnovers, the "Lazy Pick," or failure to fight through a screen or correctly go around it, etc. Then, I look at game film three times and do my own stat sheets. NO box score or plus-minus sheet tells me enough to help me coach accurately.

Clearly, several folks think Garnett's injury is a mitigator that overshadows management's off- and in-season personnel decisions.

In fact, I would assert that it's a magnifier. A fundamental foundation of building this Celtic team, given the age of its centerpieces, should be recognition of the need for the above bench pieces, to answer in-game challenges and give the club a chance to win in case one or more key pieces go down for any length of time. Anything less is a fundamental failure, a huge hole, if you will in the puzzle.

We'll never know how far this team would have gone with Garnett, but I would assert there were already fatal pieces missing from our championship puzzle.

Nicely written, Coach.

[BballTim]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

[BballTim]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

[winsomme]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

[Fafnir]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

When we're going to probably play them in the playoffs, sure.

But even if their low post defense isn't as good as Perk, who cares. You need depth.

[BballTim]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

  Would you rather see how they do keeping LeBron off the rim, or are you assuming that we won't play anyone tougher than the Bulls in the playoffs? Davis looks pretty good in the playoffs if he never has to guard anyone like Lewis or Odom or a few other players. I don't think "he's fine unless we have to play somebody good" is what I'm looking for.

[winsomme]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

like i said BBall, we could fill out our bench with assorted D Leaguers and elder FAs and still have a shot to win it all....

similarly, we could win with holes in the bench, that doesn't make it okay or sensible to leave those holes unfilled - especially when the spots were fillable.

as for the veiled shot you threw my way, i'm not pleased on any level, I am frustrated to no end at how this season played out and just hope that the lessons have been learned.

The Danny report about KGs continued possible return post ORL series didn't help.

[winsomme]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

When we're going to probably play them in the playoffs, sure.

But even if their low post defense isn't as good as Perk, who cares. You need depth.

36 MPG? where is that coming from?

let's keep the goal posts still shall we....first it's "anybody that we could add to our bench as a big is crap compared to Perk" and now it's "well they couldn't guard Dwight  Howard for 36 mins"....

[winsomme]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

  Would you rather see how they do keeping LeBron off the rim, or are you assuming that we won't play anyone tougher than the Bulls in the playoffs? Davis looks pretty good in the playoffs if he never has to guard anyone like Lewis or Odom or a few other players. I don't think "he's fine unless we have to play somebody good" is what I'm looking for.

see note above as to the "moving goal posts"...

[BballTim]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

When we're going to probably play them in the playoffs, sure.

But even if their low post defense isn't as good as Perk, who cares. You need depth.

36 MPG? where is that coming from?

let's keep the goal posts still shall we....first it's "anybody that we could add to our bench as a big is crap compared to Perk" and now it's "well they couldn't guard Dwight  Howard for 36 mins"....

  What goal posts? You said "Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big". That doesn't mean we might need someone to play for Perk if he's out with an injury? If you don't set goal posts then they're not really being moved. I could also point out that players like Sheed and McDyess weren't available last summer.

[BballTim]

what exactly is the argument against bringing in a legit backup center?

Sure KG can play more there and Perk can play more minutes in general, but why do you want to be forced into these situations because you have no other option on the bench when both these guys have reasons to not be adding to their responsibilities?

  Who's arguing against bringing in a legit backup center?

well, i suppose the people who don't see it as a clear need (last year or this) and thought Mikki Moore fit the bill.

  Ok, if you can't differentiate between "not having a legit backup center isn't necessarily an insurmountable obstacle" and "we shouldn't try and bring in a legit backup center" then I see what you mean. And I must have missed all the posts from people who felt that Moore played well enough to fit that bill.

well i was talking about at the time of the signing...and yes there were plenty of people who thought Mikki was just what we needed.

but i also believe you said you would be fine bringing back this same big man rotation for next sesaon in one of these threads...

  Sure. Some people probably thought Mikki was what we needed before he spent any time on the roster without much knowledge of how he'd play. I guess you're impressed with yourself for being part of the "we want Joe Smith and not Mikki Moore" crowd, even though Smith wanted to go to Cleveland and not Boston. Congratulations on that call.

  And what I probably said was that I wouldn't want to go through the season with a KG/Perk/Powe/Davis but if we went into the playoffs with that group we could still win it all. Do you disagree with this? Do you think that other people who think we could have won this year if we were healthy like Nick or Roy (or maybe even yourself) are arguing against bringing in a legit backup center? Come on.

similarly, we could win with holes in the bench, that doesn't make it okay or sensible to leave those holes unfilled - especially when the spots were fillable.

  Aside from the fact that I don't think these spots were as easily fillable as some people do, this seems eerily like my position, which you've been attacking repeatedly. You think we could win the title with holes on the bench, but you think that we should still try and fill those holes. I think we could still win the title with holes on our bench but that makes me an Ainge apologist who thinks there's no reason at all to try and add to our bench. Go figure.

[winsomme]

I don't think when the season started that anyone in the organization pictured Perk being able to play and be as effective as he was for 10-12 minutes more per game. He had been a foul machine and basically did nothing all summer due to his shoulder injury. So while it worked out that Perk and Baby and Rondo took steps forward in their games, the degree to which they move forward had to have been completely unexpected and hence not planned on before the season.

  Hard to say what they expected. Getting more minutes from Perk and Rondo in the playoffs was a large part of my "why we can be just as good as we were last year even though the bench is worse" argument last summer (along with improved chemistry and championship experience). I would think that if it occurred to me it wouldn't come as a surprise to them. I will admit that I probably only expected an extra 6-8 from Perk and not necessarily 10-12.

don't you think that Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big that can rebound and protect the basket?

and made it an unnecessary risk to go into this past season planning on him and KG to take up that the slack for that deficiency in the bench?

  Sure, we can use a good backup big but you have to realize whoever we get will be crap compared to Perk.

i don't agree...i think Za, Sheed, Dice wouldn't be crap.

  Fine. Stick any of them on Dwight Howard for 36 minutes and see where we end up. Especially Zaza, that defensive superstar.

36 mins on DH? that's your measuring stick?

When we're going to probably play them in the playoffs, sure.

But even if their low post defense isn't as good as Perk, who cares. You need depth.

36 MPG? where is that coming from?

let's keep the goal posts still shall we....first it's "anybody that we could add to our bench as a big is crap compared to Perk" and now it's "well they couldn't guard Dwight  Howard for 36 mins"....

  What goal posts? You said "Perk's continued shoulder problems makes it even more imperative to have a backup big". That doesn't mean we might need someone to play for Perk if he's out with an injury?

umm, no. it means you need to lessen the load he carries. something i have repeatedly pointed out.

your point about our lack of a long backup big is in part play Perk more minutes. my counterpoint was it's unwise given Perk shoulder problems to be adding to his responsibilities.