Same old Doc

[Neurotic Guy]

To add to my previous point, has there been any young player who he's missed the boat on? That is, a player who rode his bench and then went to show something special elsewhere?  Banks, Telfair, Gerald, Reed, Pruitt, Hunter  -- ahhh, no -- Rivers has not been wrong about guys who struggled to gain (or hold onto) court time here.   

[fairweatherfan]

To add to my previous point, has there been any young player who he's missed the boat on? That is, a player who rode his bench and then went to show something special elsewhere?  Banks, Telfair, Gerald, Reed, Pruitt, Hunter  -- ahhh, no -- Rivers has not been wrong about guys who struggled to gain (or hold onto) court time here.   

Great point here and in the last post - TP.  Pretty much every young player that the fan base has wanted Doc to play more often has turned out to be a failure both here and elsewhere.  The ones that developed sometimes had to wait their turn, but steadily got more minutes as they improved.  I don't know one young player that Doc's been wrong on.  We'll see what side of the fence Lester winds up on eventually.

[guava_wrench]

To add to my previous point, has there been any young player who he's missed the boat on? That is, a player who rode his bench and then went to show something special elsewhere?  Banks, Telfair, Gerald, Reed, Pruitt, Hunter  -- ahhh, no -- Rivers has not been wrong about guys who struggled to gain (or hold onto) court time here.   

Evidence, schmevidence...

[CelticG1]

Apparently you don't watch too many news reports on the Celtics.  The plan has been made very public that the Knicks game was to be most of the starters last preseason game, and that the Cleveland game would be played by mostly the reserves.  So logically, the starters and top reserves got most of the minutes.

Tune in tomorrow, while I am off doing something else, waiting for the real game against Cleveland next week, you will be able to enjoy one of your favorite games of the year.  Hudson should see big minutes, as will JR.  Ditto for Shelden and even Sweetney if he is over the flu.  Enjoy!

Thanks for stating this. Just so we're clear the Celtics starters lost to the knicks starters yesterday. Just cause Doc pulled the starters with 4 minutes left after they were getting beat by 10 doesn't mean that the bench lost to them.

Yes and no.  Here are our starters' minutes:

Garnett - 24
Pierce - 26
Perkins - 23
Allen - 31
Rondo - 27

Here are the Knicks':

Harrington - 35
Jeffries - 30
Lee - 29
Chandler - 34
Duhon - 35

In other words, the Knicks' starters played a lot more than our guys did.

Yeah thats true. But Doc pulled our starters out with like 4 or 5 min stil left in the fourth. If he hadn't have pulled them those numbers would have been pretty close and I'm pretty sure our starters weren't making a comeback at that point since they were playing like crap. I liked the switch to the bench and I don't think it was necessarily to give the starters rest. I think they just weren't giving them much energy and Doc kind of just threw the challenge out there to the reserves and they almost pulled through. Just my opinion. In any case it is pre season so I'm not worried at all about it just was throwing that out there

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

To add to my previous point, has there been any young player who he's missed the boat on? That is, a player who rode his bench and then went to show something special elsewhere?  Banks, Telfair, Gerald, Reed, Pruitt, Hunter  -- ahhh, no -- Rivers has not been wrong about guys who struggled to gain (or hold onto) court time here.   

Yeah, I made the same point in my previous post.  Doc has done a good job developing rookies and has ended up giving minutes to the good rookies (TA, Gomes, Rondo, Powe, Baby) while burying the bad rookies (Reed, Green, Pruitt, etc.) on the bench. 

That speaks to his 'eye' for talent.  What people in this thread are complaining about isn't his 'eye'; it's how he finds minutes in the rotation for the good rookies.  If you remember, Doc was criticized for not playing guys like Gomes, Powe, Big Al or Rondo early in the season--they eventually played as the season went along (sometimes due to injury), but Doc slept on several opportunities to play those guys early in the season, possibly losing games and delaying their development in the process.

Now, the argument can be made that by making those good rookies 'earn it,' Doc was furthering their development.  I don't discount that argument, and from the outside looking in it's impossible to say whether it helped or hurt. 

So, while Doc is batting about 1.000 when it comes to identifying the good rookies, I still think it's valid to take issue with how he uses those good rookies, especially early in the season when there are often more opportunities to get young players meaningful minutes.

If Hudson has shown anything so far, its that he's the most NBA-ready rookie we've had since Big Baby.  I think Doc has identified Lester as a good one; but as usual he's making him earn it.  I'd rather he make him earn it AND use him when the situations call for it.  We can have it both ways...

[Jon]

To add to my previous point, has there been any young player who he's missed the boat on? That is, a player who rode his bench and then went to show something special elsewhere?  Banks, Telfair, Gerald, Reed, Pruitt, Hunter  -- ahhh, no -- Rivers has not been wrong about guys who struggled to gain (or hold onto) court time here.   

TP. 

This is really getting ridiculous.  Not only has Doc not really missed the ball on anyone (it's a shame how he benched young players like Rondo, Perk, Baby, and Powe when we won the title...), who really cares about Lester Hudson?  What does it matter if he develops into a good player 2-3 years from now?   By that point the team will either be rebuilding (in which case a backup PG won't be all that important) or if he's really proven himself, he'll have priced himself out of the range Danny is going to want to spend on a backup PG at a time when salary flexibility will be paramount. 

 

[Tr1boy]

To add to my previous point, has there been any young player who he's missed the boat on? That is, a player who rode his bench and then went to show something special elsewhere?  Banks, Telfair, Gerald, Reed, Pruitt, Hunter  -- ahhh, no -- Rivers has not been wrong about guys who struggled to gain (or hold onto) court time here.   

TP. 

This is really getting ridiculous.  Not only has Doc not really missed the ball on anyone (it's a shame how he benched young players like Rondo, Perk, Baby, and Powe when we won the title...), who really cares about Lester Hudson?  What does it matter if he develops into a good player 2-3 years from now?   By that point the team will either be rebuilding (in which case a backup PG won't be all that important) or if he's really proven himself, he'll have priced himself out of the range Danny is going to want to spend on a backup PG at a time when salary flexibility will be paramount. 

 

Nice points. The guy comes from an old school system and sticks to habits instead of sometimes understanding to think outside the box. Every game he sits the same 4 guys down and brings in the same 2nd unit guys out and at the end of the game he plays all the starters again when clearly sometimes when a 2nd unit player has a hot hand , they deserve to get a chance on the court. Once again pure habitual robotic coaching. He is a great cheerleader though no doubt

Hudson had a great game . He did make one or two mistakes but he played once again unlike a rookie and shot a couple of nice threes. House and daniels did great jobs also but not being "pg's" on the offensive nor defensive end.

Hudson is the only viable backup pg this team has currently and doc will somehow get that one of these days.

[HomeRunBaker]

Apparently you don't watch too many news reports on the Celtics.  The plan has been made very public that the Knicks game was to be most of the starters last preseason game, and that the Cleveland game would be played by mostly the reserves.  So logically, the starters and top reserves got most of the minutes.

Tune in tomorrow, while I am off doing something else, waiting for the real game against Cleveland next week, you will be able to enjoy one of your favorite games of the year.  Hudson should see big minutes, as will JR.  Ditto for Shelden and even Sweetney if he is over the flu.  Enjoy!

Thanks for stating this. Just so we're clear the Celtics starters lost to the knicks starters yesterday. Just cause Doc pulled the starters with 4 minutes left after they were getting beat by 10 doesn't mean that the bench lost to them.

Are you really implying that the results of meaningless pre-season games being played with little intensity or focus mean anything? These games are nothing more than glorified workouts until the games begin on Tuesday. Anyone who takes anything from the results of these scrimmages is new to the game.

[Jon]

To add to my previous point, has there been any young player who he's missed the boat on? That is, a player who rode his bench and then went to show something special elsewhere?  Banks, Telfair, Gerald, Reed, Pruitt, Hunter  -- ahhh, no -- Rivers has not been wrong about guys who struggled to gain (or hold onto) court time here.   

TP. 

This is really getting ridiculous.  Not only has Doc not really missed the ball on anyone (it's a shame how he benched young players like Rondo, Perk, Baby, and Powe when we won the title...), who really cares about Lester Hudson?  What does it matter if he develops into a good player 2-3 years from now?   By that point the team will either be rebuilding (in which case a backup PG won't be all that important) or if he's really proven himself, he'll have priced himself out of the range Danny is going to want to spend on a backup PG at a time when salary flexibility will be paramount. 

 

Nice points. The guy comes from an old school system and sticks to habits instead of sometimes understanding to think outside the box. Every game he sits the same 4 guys down and brings in the same 2nd unit guys out and at the end of the game he plays all the starters again when clearly sometimes when a 2nd unit player has a hot hand , they deserve to get a chance on the court. Once again pure habitual robotic coaching. He is a great cheerleader though no doubt

Hudson had a great game . He did make one or two mistakes but he played once again unlike a rookie and shot a couple of nice threes. House and daniels did great jobs also but not being "pg's" on the offensive nor defensive end.

Hudson is the only viable backup pg this team has currently and doc will somehow get that one of these days.

The best players should be playing unless one of the following things have occurred:

1) a player is tired
2) a player is hurt
3) a player is in foul trouble
4) it is a blow out

Unless one of those four things has happened, the last few players on the bench shouldn't be playing. 

And the fact of the matter is that 9 players is more than enough to make sure no one is overplayed and to cover most instances of foul trouble. 

As for Hudson, again, who cares?  The Celtics clearly don't intend to have a pure backup PG; if they did, they would've signed a vet by now.  And it doesn't matter.  Come playoff time (the only times that really matters), Rondo is going to play 40+ mpg anyway.  They'll survive the remaining 8 minutes with House or Daniels. 

Moreover, will he even dress when Walker and Allen get healthy?  The way I see it is that if the whole team is healthy, Giddens, Williams, and Hudson will likely be inactive most nights. 

Finally, again, who cares about Lester Hudson?  What's the best case scenario, he turns into a reliable bench player in a couple years?  Great.  We don't need to be overly eager about developing someone whose upside is to be a bench player and has a better chance of being out of the league in three years. 

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

Finally, again, who cares about Lester Hudson?  What's the best case scenario, he turns into a reliable bench player in a couple years?  Great.  We don't need to be overly eager about developing someone whose upside is to be a bench player and has a better chance of being out of the league in three years. 

Yeah, who cared about Big Baby in 2007-2008?  2nd round pick coming onto a stacked championship caliber team w/4 bigs ahead of him.  Couldn't jump, played short, couldn't defend.  He'll never play! Big Baby, big deal!  Ha!  Why be overly eager about developing someone whose upside is to be a reliable bench player in 3 years?  He's so fat, he might eat his way out of the league in 3 years!

Hudson's the most NBA-ready rookie we've had since Baby.  He can flat-out score, create his shot, shoot from range, and finish at the rim with either hand.  He's very quick in transition, and has quick hands and feet on defense.  He can dribble well enough to bring the ball up against decent pressure.  He doesn't rattle; he competes.  And he has enough sense to pass the ball to an open teammate.  Most importantly, he has the inner confidence to play like he belongs, unlike almost any other rookie point guard you'll find, especially in contrast to guys like Pruitt and Giddens.

Hudson projects as House's replacement, as early as next season.  You're completely underselling both his potential as a player, and the team's need for a player like him, not to mention the fact that his older-than-average rookie age actually will help him contribute faster than the average rookie.  Hudson is a 25 year old MAN who can score at the NBA level and plays a position of need.  Dismiss his impact at your own peril.

Of course, he's trying to learn a whole new position (point guard), but with some seasoning in the D-League, he's going to be a player.  That's eminently clear.  His ability to run more than a few plays is in question right now--but once he gets the playbook under his thumb, and learns some tricks of the point guard trade, watch out. 

Edit: Check PM's

[fairweatherfan]

To add to my previous point, has there been any young player who he's missed the boat on? That is, a player who rode his bench and then went to show something special elsewhere?  Banks, Telfair, Gerald, Reed, Pruitt, Hunter  -- ahhh, no -- Rivers has not been wrong about guys who struggled to gain (or hold onto) court time here.   

TP. 

This is really getting ridiculous.  Not only has Doc not really missed the ball on anyone (it's a shame how he benched young players like Rondo, Perk, Baby, and Powe when we won the title...), who really cares about Lester Hudson?  What does it matter if he develops into a good player 2-3 years from now?   By that point the team will either be rebuilding (in which case a backup PG won't be all that important) or if he's really proven himself, he'll have priced himself out of the range Danny is going to want to spend on a backup PG at a time when salary flexibility will be paramount. 

 

Nice points. The guy comes from an old school system and sticks to habits instead of sometimes understanding to think outside the box. Every game he sits the same 4 guys down and brings in the same 2nd unit guys out and at the end of the game he plays all the starters again when clearly sometimes when a 2nd unit player has a hot hand , they deserve to get a chance on the court. Once again pure habitual robotic coaching. He is a great cheerleader though no doubt

Huh.  I could've sworn I saw James Posey finish quite a few of our important games 2 years ago, including several in the Finals.  Eddie House might've been out there for a couple too.  And I KNOW I'm nuts now, because I thought I saw PJ Brown of all people (isn't he retired?) making clutch plays in Game 7 against Cleveland.  And I have this crazy theory that Sheed is going to be on the court for more than a few final buzzers this year.  Must just be me though. 

[Rondo_is_better]

Finally, again, who cares about Lester Hudson?  What's the best case scenario, he turns into a reliable bench player in a couple years?  Great.  We don't need to be overly eager about developing someone whose upside is to be a bench player and has a better chance of being out of the league in three years. 

Yeah, who cared about Big Baby in 2007-2008?  2nd round pick coming onto a stacked championship caliber team w/4 bigs ahead of him.  Couldn't jump, played short, couldn't defend.  He'll never play! Big Baby, big deal!  Ha!  Why be overly eager about developing someone whose upside is to be a reliable bench player in 3 years?  He's so fat, he might eat his way out of the league in 3 years!

Seriously, you're so short-sighted you've mistaken your bed for the bathroom on this one.

Hudson's the most NBA-ready rookie we've had since Baby.  He can flat-out score, create his shot, shoot from range, and finish at the rim with either hand.  He's very quick in transition, and has quick hands and feet on defense.  He can dribble well enough to bring the ball up against decent pressure.  He doesn't rattle; he competes.  And he has enough sense to pass the ball to an open teammate.  Most importantly, he has the inner confidence to play like he belongs, unlike almost any other rookie point guard you'll find, especially in contrast to guys like Pruitt and Giddens.

Hudson projects as House's replacement, as early as next season.  You're completely underselling both his potential as a player, and the team's need for a player like him, not to mention the fact that his older-than-average rookie age actually will help him contribute faster than the average rookie.  Hudson is a 25 year old MAN who can score at the NBA level and plays a position of need.  Dismiss his impact at your own peril.

Of course, he's trying to learn a whole new position (point guard), but with some seasoning in the D-League, he's going to be a player.  That's eminently clear.  His ability to run more than a few plays is in question right now--but once he gets the playbook under his thumb, and learns some tricks of the point guard trade, watch out. 

Great post Salmon. I feel exactly the same about Star, and when you brought up the idea of him replacing Eddie House, a bright light washed over me and a chorus of Angels began to sing--THAT'S his role! Of course! I KNEW he fit SOMEWHERE!

[Roy Hobbs]

One of the things I criticized Doc for in the past was not having a set rotation, and not allowing players to get comfortable in their roles.  Needless to say, I couldn't be more pleased that Doc has a clear top-nine right now (with the tenth man being mixed in from time to time).

My biggest issue with Doc now is his propensity for mass substitutions, playing with four or five bench players at once.  I think the team would be more consistently effective with a mix of starters in the game at all times, although this concern is definitely mitigated by the strength of our bench unit.  Rasheed/BBD/Daniels/House are good enough to hang with most other teams, especially when matched up against opposing bench players.

[CelticG1]

Apparently you don't watch too many news reports on the Celtics.  The plan has been made very public that the Knicks game was to be most of the starters last preseason game, and that the Cleveland game would be played by mostly the reserves.  So logically, the starters and top reserves got most of the minutes.

Tune in tomorrow, while I am off doing something else, waiting for the real game against Cleveland next week, you will be able to enjoy one of your favorite games of the year.  Hudson should see big minutes, as will JR.  Ditto for Shelden and even Sweetney if he is over the flu.  Enjoy!

Thanks for stating this. Just so we're clear the Celtics starters lost to the knicks starters yesterday. Just cause Doc pulled the starters with 4 minutes left after they were getting beat by 10 doesn't mean that the bench lost to them.

Are you really implying that the results of meaningless pre-season games being played with little intensity or focus mean anything? These games are nothing more than glorified workouts until the games begin on Tuesday. Anyone who takes anything from the results of these scrimmages is new to the game.

No did i say the game meant anything? All i was saying is that the starters lost the game more than the bench did. Am I wrong? The Celtics haven't played any of these games with "little intensity" as you said except for last night. I feel like every article that has been on this site has talked about defensive intensity and how we have been going full out. I think Ray Allen mentioned something about it. Also I woudl say they are a bit more than "glorified workouts". You definitely take them with a grain of salt but I'm sure the players and coaches are taking this as a joke

[guava_wrench]

I'm not sure why this thread is becoming so focused on Hudson.

The bottom line is fans like to critique their coaches. Fans like to think they know the magic moves that would make things work. There are always countless possible things that can be done, and we can expect that there will always be fans who end up wishing another path had been taken.

The problem is the generalization in the beginning of this thread that the data doesn't support. Everyone is free to their opinion about whether they like a coach's rotations, but history doesn't seem to support the idea that Doc doesn't develop players. It actually shows players either developing under Doc, or never developing.

Those that developed under Doc and were then traded did not show accelerated development elsewhere.

I think a lot of people need to take a step back and honestly look at their credentials as basketball commentators. Perhaps they should also try to understand the reasons why things are done instead of trying to force their intuitions. This thread is a perfect example.