Doc Rivers and more on building a winner

[CoachBo]

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.

[Steve Weinman]

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.

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 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.

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.

Cosign.

Didn't leave a ton to add.    Perhaps it's simple blind homerism overcoming me (as it's known to do), but I can't say for sure that I thought fatal pieces were missing if healthy, but I do think we made it tougher for ourselves than it had to be, even if everyone on the roster was at full health.

-sw

[CoachBo]

I could write a ton more on this subject, but here are a couple of the really fatal pieces missing:

1. No one capable of stretching the defense off the bench. With Ray cold and the Captain out of gas, our distance shooting numbers were dismal.

2. The backup 5's got to be able to protect your defensive backboard. The ones we felt we could play weren't big enough to do that consistently.

3. No defensive stopper off the bench.

It was inevitable, unfortunately, that we were going to run into someone who could exploit our lack of depth. We probably beat Orlando with KG, but I really can't see us beating Cleveland with Pierce running on fumes.

[Steve Weinman]

I could write a ton more on this subject, but here are a couple of the really fatal pieces missing:

1. No one capable of stretching the defense off the bench. With Ray cold and the Captain out of gas, our distance shooting numbers were dismal.

2. The backup 5's got to be able to protect your defensive backboard. The ones we felt we could play weren't big enough to do that consistently.

3. No defensive stopper off the bench.

It was inevitable, unfortunately, that we were going to run into someone who could exploit our lack of depth. We probably beat Orlando with KG, but I really can't see us beating Cleveland with Pierce running on fumes.

I should clarify - I agree that certain important pieces were missing, as you and I have discussed all year, especially numbers two and three (I might posit that Eddie House spent much of the year providing what you wanted at number one and forced the Magic to use their best perimeter defender - Lee - to stick him late in the Orlando series).  I just talked myself into the idea that there was a chance that they wouldn't prove fatal.

Agreed otherwise.

-sw

[nickagneta]

Other of the intangibles that I think Doc was talking about is the veteran leadership and glue that Posey brought to the clubhouse. I've never been in the Celtics locker room but let's face it, after the Big Three this was an extremely young team this year that I think suffered from not having that extra guy who knew the league, knew the players, knew what playing through pain was about, knew when and when not to do certain things and to be able to advise the younger guys. I just think a team that is vying for a championship will always suffer from taking away proven, veteran, leadership.

And this is why I have been saying since the start of the season that bringing in proven veterans that could fill roles was the best situation for this team. Instead we had a ton of young players that had to earn their playing time through proving it to the coach in practice. So many just don't get that young players have to earn that PT and professional coaches can not just give rookies and project minutes at the expense of winning and losing the veteran's respect who to a man believe that young players have to prove themselves.

Also, bench diversity is so essential. There was none as Coach so aptly stated and so I won't expand upon that other to say, I don't think that can be said enough.

TP4U Coach. I had a lot of the same thoughts while reading through today's front page discussion.

[POBstuntin]

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.  

[LooseCannon]

We probably beat Orlando with KG, but I really can't see us beating Cleveland with Pierce running on fumes.

Pierce is less likely to be running on fumes if KG is healthy.  I think Pierce burned through more of his mental and physical reserves trying to make up for the loss of KG when he could have paced himself at the end of the season, and of course he plays less minutes against Chicago and Orlando because those series end quicker.

[bucknersrevenge]

I was on board with not resigning Posey. I believed(and still do) that 4 years was too long for him. But I think cordobes said it best on the main page when saying there is a difference between building a contender and building a WINNER. And maybe at the beginning of the year my problem was that I was ok with being a contender. That said there were a number of free agents that I felt could've been signed fairly inexpensively that we didn't bat an eye in their direction. Guys like Roger Mason and Matt Barnes I felt could've been had to boost our team. After we didn't get them I might have even talked myself into thinking Tony would be alright for the playoffs. But if we want a WINNER here we can't piecemail our MLE into tiny piece to sign players. I agree with Doc that we need at least 2 more veteran guys.

I'm a Giddens fan and I think in time he can be that defensive wing stopper so I want to hold onto him But if our time has to be "now", then he has to be at the end of the bench with Walker. I think Ainge tried to balance our window now with keeping an eye on the future because he doesn't want another 18 year drought after a championship run. Maybe you just can't do that. You can't balance. You have to be ALL IN or you're not.

[CoachBo]

I could write a ton more on this subject, but here are a couple of the really fatal pieces missing:

1. No one capable of stretching the defense off the bench. With Ray cold and the Captain out of gas, our distance shooting numbers were dismal.

2. The backup 5's got to be able to protect your defensive backboard. The ones we felt we could play weren't big enough to do that consistently.

3. No defensive stopper off the bench.

It was inevitable, unfortunately, that we were going to run into someone who could exploit our lack of depth. We probably beat Orlando with KG, but I really can't see us beating Cleveland with Pierce running on fumes.

I should clarify - I agree that certain important pieces were missing, as you and I have discussed all year, especially numbers two and three (I might posit that Eddie House spent much of the year providing what you wanted at number one and forced the Magic to use their best perimeter defender - Lee - to stick him late in the Orlando series).  I just talked myself into the idea that there was a chance that they wouldn't prove fatal.

Agreed otherwise.

-sw

Oh, I agree. I think, though, in the playoffs fatal weaknesses manifest themselves a little irregularly in the game situations.

Generally speaking, I don't like my chances if I'm trying to beat your eight or nine with my five and a half or six.

[LB3533]

We weren't able to replace Posey's numbers either.

[CoachBo]

Posey certainly wasn't the only option we had available last summer to fill some of the roles I consider essential to a champion.

And let's be clear about this: Posey's value, as I see it, wasn't in that he was great at anything. He was good, though, at a number of skillsets you simply must have on your bench: spreading the floor with the long ball, intelligence, positional versatility, hustle, attitude, physicality. You've got to have the first two qualities; the last four are icing on your cake as a coach.

It continues to trouble me that we so easily let those qualities walk away, and then so callously refused to move to fill that void at the deadline.

I just don't think you can underestimate the value of finding all those qualities under one hood. And I suspect if you added up the tab for the money we wasted this year, you're going to cover about half of the money we were so hyper-concerned about losing to Posey in the first place.

I do agree that Posey's got just a handful of years left; where I differ strongly with management is on the value of those qualities he brought to the table.

[CoachBo]

Other of the intangibles that I think Doc was talking about is the veteran leadership and glue that Posey brought to the clubhouse. I've never been in the Celtics locker room but let's face it, after the Big Three this was an extremely young team this year that I think suffered from not having that extra guy who knew the league, knew the players, knew what playing through pain was about, knew when and when not to do certain things and to be able to advise the younger guys. I just think a team that is vying for a championship will always suffer from taking away proven, veteran, leadership.

And this is why I have been saying since the start of the season that bringing in proven veterans that could fill roles was the best situation for this team. Instead we had a ton of young players that had to earn their playing time through proving it to the coach in practice. So many just don't get that young players have to earn that PT and professional coaches can not just give rookies and project minutes at the expense of winning and losing the veteran's respect who to a man believe that young players have to prove themselves.

Also, bench diversity is so essential. There was none as Coach so aptly stated and so I won't expand upon that other to say, I don't think that can be said enough.

TP4U Coach. I had a lot of the same thoughts while reading through today's front page discussion.

Totally agree, Nick. When Garnett went down, we suddenly became VERY young.

This is the overriding reason why, were I Ainge, there's a max price I can pay for Baby. In my opinion, one FA isn't going to do it. We need a workable 5 who can rebound and defend, and hopefully hit a shot. And then, we've got to have a 3 who can defend and, hopefully, hit the long ball to spell Pierce. If that three's flexible enough to jump between the 2 and 4, so much the better.

[BballTim]

I could write a ton more on this subject, but here are a couple of the really fatal pieces missing:

1. No one capable of stretching the defense off the bench. With Ray cold and the Captain out of gas, our distance shooting numbers were dismal.

2. The backup 5's got to be able to protect your defensive backboard. The ones we felt we could play weren't big enough to do that consistently.

3. No defensive stopper off the bench.

It was inevitable, unfortunately, that we were going to run into someone who could exploit our lack of depth. We probably beat Orlando with KG, but I really can't see us beating Cleveland with Pierce running on fumes.

  I don't know that #2 was really fatal. If you have KG in the game when Perk is out then you play Davis/Scal at pf. Why isn't that workable? And you're understating the difference with and without KG. For starters, with KG, we probably sweep the Bulls and at worst go 5 games. So going into the Orlando series (which, the way it was, went 7 games) Paul, Ray, Perk and Rondo are much more rested. You trade 36 minutes of Davis for 36 minutes of KG. You trade 25 minutes of Scal/Moore for 25 minutes of Davis/Scal. All three of those would have a significant impact on a series that we didn't lose by much. While it's true that we didn't get anything useful out of our backup three and Marbury wasn't great, those reasons pale in comparison to not having KG for the postseason.

  Not saying we couldn't use a better bench, just saying that we weren't destined to lose until KG (and Powe) went down.

[CoachBo]

I could write a ton more on this subject, but here are a couple of the really fatal pieces missing:

1. No one capable of stretching the defense off the bench. With Ray cold and the Captain out of gas, our distance shooting numbers were dismal.

2. The backup 5's got to be able to protect your defensive backboard. The ones we felt we could play weren't big enough to do that consistently.

3. No defensive stopper off the bench.

It was inevitable, unfortunately, that we were going to run into someone who could exploit our lack of depth. We probably beat Orlando with KG, but I really can't see us beating Cleveland with Pierce running on fumes.

  I don't know that #2 was really fatal. If you have KG in the game when Perk is out then you play Davis/Scal at pf. Why isn't that workable? And you're understating the difference with and without KG. For starters, with KG, we probably sweep the Bulls and at worst go 5 games. So going into the Orlando series (which, the way it was, went 7 games) Paul, Ray, Perk and Rondo are much more rested. You trade 36 minutes of Davis for 36 minutes of KG. You trade 25 minutes of Scal/Moore for 25 minutes of Davis/Scal. All three of those would have a significant impact on a series that we didn't lose by much. While it's true that we didn't get anything useful out of our backup three and Marbury wasn't great, those reasons pale in comparison to not having KG for the postseason.

  Not saying we couldn't use a better bench, just saying that we weren't destined to lose until KG (and Powe) went down.

A couple of points:

First, when Perkins is out of the lineup, both Davis and Scal are at best average on the glass. Neither was able to successfully protect the defensive backboard in Games 6 and 7. So I don't agree - at all - that KG, Perkins, Davis and Scal are an adequate big rotation. The first two, obviously. But Davis plays under the rim, and Scal, bless his heart, has his own definite limitations. They had five rebounds between them in significant minutes in Game 6, and another 5 between them in 44 minutes in Game 7. Simply inadequate production.

Second, you underrate the fatigue factor. We're not going to sweep a Bulls team that got significant contributions out of Brad Miller and Kirk Hinrich off the bench, contributions that, with one exception, outstripped anything we have.

As Roy said in the front page thread, I understand the need to defend Ainge. His overall body of work is good.

But it isn't perfect, and last summer was an abject disaster. And you just can't take a five or six-player aging nucleus into a playoffs and expect to repeat. The production of Posey at the 3, PJ at the 5 and Sam at the 1 all exceeded the averages we got from a very bereft bench in these playoffs. We would have made it interesting with Garnett. But we weren't going to repeat with this bench.

As the poster above notes, people are confusing building a winner with building a champion. They are very different animals.

[BballTim]

I could write a ton more on this subject, but here are a couple of the really fatal pieces missing:

1. No one capable of stretching the defense off the bench. With Ray cold and the Captain out of gas, our distance shooting numbers were dismal.

2. The backup 5's got to be able to protect your defensive backboard. The ones we felt we could play weren't big enough to do that consistently.

3. No defensive stopper off the bench.

It was inevitable, unfortunately, that we were going to run into someone who could exploit our lack of depth. We probably beat Orlando with KG, but I really can't see us beating Cleveland with Pierce running on fumes.

  I don't know that #2 was really fatal. If you have KG in the game when Perk is out then you play Davis/Scal at pf. Why isn't that workable? And you're understating the difference with and without KG. For starters, with KG, we probably sweep the Bulls and at worst go 5 games. So going into the Orlando series (which, the way it was, went 7 games) Paul, Ray, Perk and Rondo are much more rested. You trade 36 minutes of Davis for 36 minutes of KG. You trade 25 minutes of Scal/Moore for 25 minutes of Davis/Scal. All three of those would have a significant impact on a series that we didn't lose by much. While it's true that we didn't get anything useful out of our backup three and Marbury wasn't great, those reasons pale in comparison to not having KG for the postseason.

  Not saying we couldn't use a better bench, just saying that we weren't destined to lose until KG (and Powe) went down.

A couple of points:

First, when Perkins is out of the lineup, both Davis and Scal are at best average on the glass. Neither was able to successfully protect the defensive backboard in Games 6 and 7. So I don't agree - at all - that KG, Perkins, Davis and Scal are an adequate big rotation. The first two, obviously. But Davis plays under the rim, and Scal, bless his heart, has his own definite limitations. They had five rebounds between them in significant minutes in Game 6, and another 5 between them in 44 minutes in Game 7. Simply inadequate production.

  What I'm saying is that I agree that Davis and Scal are both poor rebounders. We did ok with Perk and one of them in the game. I'm saying that you take Perk out and KG out at seperate times so that one of them is in there. If Perk and Davis is an adequate combination then KG and Davis should also be. Again, it's obviously not ideal but it seems workable in a pinch.

Second, you underrate the fatigue factor. We're not going to sweep a Bulls team that got significant contributions out of Brad Miller and Kirk Hinrich off the bench, contributions that, with one exception, outstripped anything we have.

  Not sure on this one. None of the games we lost were in regulation. You don't think that playing KG instead of Davis for 36 minutes would result in tipping the game in our favor?

As Roy said in the front page thread, I understand the need to defend Ainge. His overall body of work is good.

  From the other side, I think you guys are letting your opinion of Danny's personnel work this summer color your opinion of the team. The fact that the team could succeed in spite of Danny's poor decisions borders on heresy. That's why IMO you can't believe that we'd sweep the Bulls if KG were healthy when the games we lost were overtime games. The fact that they got better play out of their bench doesn't necessarily trump the large advantage we'd have had with our starters over theirs. My saying the Celts could have won the title doesn't mean that TA was a great backup. It doesn't mean that Moore or Marbury were great additions. But the fact that Moore, Marbury and TA didn't contribute much doesn't mean that we were doomed.

But it isn't perfect, and last summer was an abject disaster. And you just can't take a five or six-player aging nucleus into a playoffs and expect to repeat. The production of Posey at the 3, PJ at the 5 and Sam at the 1 all exceeded the averages we got from a very bereft bench in these playoffs. We would have made it interesting with Garnett. But we weren't going to repeat with this bench.

  I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but when you compare the bench play this year with the bench play last year you'd have to consider that Rondo and Perk were capable of playing many more minutes this year. Instead of 16-18 minutes of Sam or Eddie you'd get 8-10 mintutes of Steph or Eddie and 8-10 minutes of Rondo. Instead of 24 minutes of PJ or Powe you'd get 12 minutes of Davis/Powe (if Leon were healthy) and 12 minutes of Perk. Those both seem like wins to me. You'd also have significant improvements in the minutes Perk and Rondo played as starters (if you get my breakdown). We'd lose out on Posey's minutes, but overall we wouldn't be that bad off. Clearly you can't slice it up and add it up but the fact that the bench is playing fewer minutes than last year has to figure into the analysis.