Doc Rivers and more on building a winner

[winsomme]

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

well Danny said at least twice that he was progressing well in his rehab.

and when pressed on the topic said that only honest answer on the question of if he could play  is "I don't know" and that anybody who said more than that is only guessing.

so the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with the ORL series loss...something i again believe you conceded wouldn't have happened with a better bench.

   They postponed his surgery in case he improved, but, again, there's no sign that he did.

  

well i would count "progressing" as a sign of improvement.

and like Danny said, suggesting that the chances were "practically nil" is nothing more than a guess on your part.

the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with ORL series as opposed to being alive in a CLE series.

plus, who's to say that with adequate replacements for PJ and Pose we couldn't have gotten past CLE?

  If we could have beaten Cleveland with better backups then we would have cruised past them with KG and Powe. You wasted an entire season complaining about a team that (in your opinion) was well better than the 2nd best team in the league.

It's the difference between possibilities and likelihoods...something that seems to be a big stumbling block in this argument.

any way you slice it, it was a mistake to not fill out the bench better.

A) because it was doable.

B) because it would have taken some of the burden off the starters

C) because it would have given flexibility to deal with different match ups that we would face in the playoffs.

D) because it would have made it easier to compensate for injuries and in a case like KG keep us around for as long as possible in case of a return.

[cordobes]

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.

Great post.

I'd like to highlight this sentence:


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 also believe that winning teams share some common traits and no matter how unorthodox you may be, you won't be winning (at this level) unless you have most of the parts of that "team skill-set" covered. Otherwise, sooner or later, an opponent of yours will know how to exploit your more blatant weaknesses.

I think this team, if fully healthy, still had decent chance to win the title; but it had too many worrying missing pieces for my liking. I think that, in regards to pro-basketball, the axiom "there's many ways to skin a cat" rings true only to a certain extent.

[winsomme]

I think this team, if fully healthy, still had decent chance to win the title; but it had too many worrying missing pieces for my liking.

agreed. too many missing pieces. and more importantly, pieces that reasonably could have been filled.

also, pieces that we had clear evidence of their positive effect from the previous season.

[jdpapa3]

I think this team, if fully healthy, still had decent chance to win the title; but it had too many worrying missing pieces for my liking.

agreed. too many missing pieces. and more importantly, pieces that reasonably could have been filled.

also, pieces that we had clear evidence of their positive effect from the previous season.

I just didn't see the guy out there that would recreate Posey's role. I don't think Danny did either, so he drafted two long SF's and Doc didn't put them in the rotation. I don't know if they would've worked out if they actually were given the opportunity.

[winsomme]

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

well Danny said at least twice that he was progressing well in his rehab.

and when pressed on the topic said that only honest answer on the question of if he could play  is "I don't know" and that anybody who said more than that is only guessing.

so the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with the ORL series loss...something i again believe you conceded wouldn't have happened with a better bench.

   They postponed his surgery in case he improved, but, again, there's no sign that he did.

  

well i would count "progressing" as a sign of improvement.

and like Danny said, suggesting that the chances were "practically nil" is nothing more than a guess on your part.

the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with ORL series as opposed to being alive in a CLE series.

plus, who's to say that with adequate replacements for PJ and Pose we couldn't have gotten past CLE?

  If we could have beaten Cleveland with better backups then we would have cruised past them with KG and Powe. You wasted an entire season complaining about a team that (in your opinion) was well better than the 2nd best team in the league.

by the way, i didn't say it was "likely" that we would beat CLE with a Posey and PJ replacement, just possible.

also possible to beat them without a Posey and PJ replacement but with KG and Powe.

now add a PJ and Posey replacement (both pretty doable) to a team with KG and Leon....and then we're talking.

[BballTim]

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

well Danny said at least twice that he was progressing well in his rehab.

and when pressed on the topic said that only honest answer on the question of if he could play  is "I don't know" and that anybody who said more than that is only guessing.

so the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with the ORL series loss...something i again believe you conceded wouldn't have happened with a better bench.

   They postponed his surgery in case he improved, but, again, there's no sign that he did.

  

well i would count "progressing" as a sign of improvement.

and like Danny said, suggesting that the chances were "practically nil" is nothing more than a guess on your part.

the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with ORL series as opposed to being alive in a CLE series.

plus, who's to say that with adequate replacements for PJ and Pose we couldn't have gotten past CLE?

  If we could have beaten Cleveland with better backups then we would have cruised past them with KG and Powe. You wasted an entire season complaining about a team that (in your opinion) was well better than the 2nd best team in the league.

by the way, i didn't say it was "likely" that we would beat CLE with a Posey and PJ replacement, just possible.

also possible to beat them without a Posey and PJ replacement but with KG and Powe.

now add a PJ and Posey replacement (both pretty doable) to a team with KG and Leon....and then we're talking.

  Sure it's doable if you assume that any FA will sign with us for whatever we offer and fit right into the lineup.

[winsomme]

  In case he gets well enough to play. Again, was there any sign that was happening within the next few days?

well Danny said at least twice that he was progressing well in his rehab.

and when pressed on the topic said that only honest answer on the question of if he could play  is "I don't know" and that anybody who said more than that is only guessing.

so the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with the ORL series loss...something i again believe you conceded wouldn't have happened with a better bench.

   They postponed his surgery in case he improved, but, again, there's no sign that he did.

  

well i would count "progressing" as a sign of improvement.

and like Danny said, suggesting that the chances were "practically nil" is nothing more than a guess on your part.

the larger point is that whatever the chances were, they ended with ORL series as opposed to being alive in a CLE series.

plus, who's to say that with adequate replacements for PJ and Pose we couldn't have gotten past CLE?

  If we could have beaten Cleveland with better backups then we would have cruised past them with KG and Powe. You wasted an entire season complaining about a team that (in your opinion) was well better than the 2nd best team in the league.

by the way, i didn't say it was "likely" that we would beat CLE with a Posey and PJ replacement, just possible.

also possible to beat them without a Posey and PJ replacement but with KG and Powe.

now add a PJ and Posey replacement (both pretty doable) to a team with KG and Leon....and then we're talking.

  Sure it's doable if you assume that any FA will sign with us for whatever we offer and fit right into the lineup.

or "not doable" because Danny would never misjudge or miscalculate in the process of putting a bench together....

[BballTim]

or "not doable" because Danny would never misjudge or miscalculate in the process of putting a bench together....

  Clearly he misjudged and miscalculated, since it's pretty obvious that he had no idea that players like Andersen and Barnes were capable of transforming a team that took 7 games and 7 overtimes to beat the Bulls into a powerhouse that could beat the mighty Cavs. I can't believe he wasted his time pursuing players with nowhere near their ability to influence games like James Posey. If only he'd known how simple his job could be...

[Jon]

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.

The only thing I add to this is the fact that people (including Ainge) need to get over the fact that this team probably isn't going to be a title contender in 3-4 years...and that's OK.  We knew that when we traded for Garnett and Allen.  So having Posey at a high price 3 years from now wouldn't be a big deal. 

The whole goal in professional sports is to win a title: we did that.  We could have tried to turn Rondo and Jefferson into Stockton and Malone, but like Utah, we could have had nothing to show for it when all was said and done.

3-4 years from now we probably won't be contending.  At that point, I really don't care how bad we are, because in my book, if you're not contending, it's all just a matter of how bad you are. 

[Fafnir]

There is a difference between no longer being a contender, and no longer being a contender and still being in salary hell.

[winsomme]

or "not doable" because Danny would never misjudge or miscalculate in the process of putting a bench together....

  Clearly he misjudged and miscalculated, since it's pretty obvious that he had no idea that players like Andersen and Barnes were capable of transforming a team that took 7 games and 7 overtimes to beat the Bulls into a powerhouse that could beat the mighty Cavs. I can't believe he wasted his time pursuing players with nowhere near their ability to influence games like James Posey. If only he'd known how simple his job could be...

right because we got huge contributions for TA, Mikki and Steph in the playoffs....no way we could upgrade over those guys.

certainly couldn't have used guys that averaged 12 PPG/6RPG or 7PPG/6RPG couple of blocks...really no use for guys like that in the CHI and ORL series. definitely would not have made a difference. definitely.

[winsomme]

There is a difference between no longer being a contender, and no longer being a contender and still being in salary hell.

6.5 mil and 6.9 mil to Pose is salary hell? and isn't that 6.9 mil an expiring contract at that point?

[BballTim]

or "not doable" because Danny would never misjudge or miscalculate in the process of putting a bench together....

  Clearly he misjudged and miscalculated, since it's pretty obvious that he had no idea that players like Andersen and Barnes were capable of transforming a team that took 7 games and 7 overtimes to beat the Bulls into a powerhouse that could beat the mighty Cavs. I can't believe he wasted his time pursuing players with nowhere near their ability to influence games like James Posey. If only he'd known how simple his job could be...

right because we got huge contributions for TA, Mikki and Steph in the playoffs....no way we could upgrade over those guys.

certainly couldn't have used guys that averaged 12 PPG/6RPG or 7PPG/6RPG couple of blocks...really no use for guys like that in the CHI and ORL series. definitely would not have made a difference. definitely.

  No, you're right, they're just what we need to put us over the Cavs. btw, Barnes got his 10 points and 6 boards in 27 minutes a game. He'd get less than half those minutes backing up Pierce. Is that 5 points and 3 boards, along with Andersen's highly erratic play, going to take our current core (Paul/Ray/Perk/Rondo/Davis/Eddie/Marbury) and make it as good as the best team in the league? Since we were roughly as good as Cleveland when KG went down, that would mean that Barnes and Andersen would add nearly as much to the team as KG and Powe. See my point? Not only do you not know whether Barnes was interested in playing for Boston, and not only do you not know whether he'd be as productive offensively in our offense as he was in Phoenix's, but you're greatly exaggerating the impact they'd have on our team. That's why you're sure it would be simple to fill our holes with quality players.

[winsomme]

or "not doable" because Danny would never misjudge or miscalculate in the process of putting a bench together....

  Clearly he misjudged and miscalculated, since it's pretty obvious that he had no idea that players like Andersen and Barnes were capable of transforming a team that took 7 games and 7 overtimes to beat the Bulls into a powerhouse that could beat the mighty Cavs. I can't believe he wasted his time pursuing players with nowhere near their ability to influence games like James Posey. If only he'd known how simple his job could be...

right because we got huge contributions for TA, Mikki and Steph in the playoffs....no way we could upgrade over those guys.

certainly couldn't have used guys that averaged 12 PPG/6RPG or 7PPG/6RPG couple of blocks...really no use for guys like that in the CHI and ORL series. definitely would not have made a difference. definitely.

  No, you're right, they're just what we need to put us over the Cavs. btw, Barnes got his 10 points and 6 boards in 27 minutes a game. He'd get less than half those minutes backing up Pierce. Is that 5 points and 3 boards, along with Andersen's highly erratic play, going to take our current core (Paul/Ray/Perk/Rondo/Davis/Eddie/Marbury) and make it as good as the best team in the league? Since we were roughly as good as Cleveland when KG went down, that would mean that Barnes and Andersen would add nearly as much to the team as KG and Powe. See my point? Not only do you not know whether Barnes was interested in playing for Boston, and not only do you not know whether he'd be as productive offensively in our offense as he was in Phoenix's, but you're greatly exaggerating the impact they'd have on our team. That's why you're sure it would be simple to fill our holes with quality players.

well i was talking about Posey and Bird with those playoff stats, but Pose played something like 20+ MPG last season in the playoffs with healthy Paul and KG...

and why does Barnes+Anderson have to be equally impactful as adding KG and Powe. all i'm saying is both additions individually would have made it possible to beat CLE. not equally possible...

[LB3533]

I was very comfortable with Powe, House, Baby off the bench.

But when you have to depend on the bench to play as starters and reproduce starter's stats...and then the team has no bench to replace the bench that became the starters...it's no wonder it took the team so long to dispatch the Bulls and probably would have never gone 6 games with the Magic.