Why Didn't Doc Bench Ray?

[thedawg]

I don't understand.  Tony was playing well and Ray wasn't.  It's not like he never benched Ray before.  He's done it in a playoff game.  I know Tony can't shoot, but he'll play great defense and attack the basket.  Both teams were in the penalty, so we could have used some Tony.  And why did Rondo keep passing to Ray when KG was hot and Pierce had just hit a 3?

I agree. The only way to get through the Lakers is to attack the big guys and get the into foul trouble and on the bench. This is what Lakers does to us, although we are good at helping them out with stupendous fouls.

We got Four big names in our team; Paul Pierce, KG, Ray Allen and Rasheed. The frustrating thing about them is that they cannot seem to be able to play 2-3 good games as a team. As for last night, we are paying 70% too much in wages for the above mentioned players.

Why we couldnt take off Ray Allen is simple.  We are loaded with old guys who take too much cap space which leaves us with a slim bench. I demand two of those stars being offloaded this summer to bring in younger guys with same/better potential. I am so annoyed that I am going to stop writing now....

[wdleehi]

Outside of his shooting, Ray was player well enough.


They needed to stop setting him up for outside shots and try to get him easier baskets near the hoop. 

[looseball]

I would always choose to leave Ray in the game. He is too large of a threat to go off at a moment's notice and drain a bunch of big shots.

I was happy Doc left him on the court.

Yah, it's like playing the slots:  you know the next one is bound to be a winner.

[Mr October]

I was glad Ray is on the floor. I can't tell you how many times I have seen him lay an egg for 35-40 minutes, and then suddenly hit a crucial shot or 2 at the end of the game.

And yes I agree that they forced too many plays to try to get him 3 point shots. Gotta go to KG and Pierce more when they are feeling it.

[FallGuy]

I think Nick answered this question definitively on page one of the thread.

[looseball]

I was glad Ray is on the floor. I can't tell you how many times I have seen him lay an egg for 35-40 minutes, and then suddenly hit a crucial shot or 2 at the end of the game.

And yes I agree that they forced too many plays to try to get him 3 point shots. Gotta go to KG and Pierce more when they are feeling it.

The question is, really, why did Ray play 42 minutes?
He's been rather erratic in the playoffs.  He was not having a good game last night.  Aside from his poor shooting he made some bad decisions.  He totally botched a 2-on-1 with KG, with only Fisher back on D.  He forced the play when he should have passed to KG for a slam.  Even though it looked like a blocking foul on Fisher, you want a layup, not foul shots, in that situation. 
In the 4th quarter we got the lead down to one point, held them at the other end, and had a chance to take the lead for the first time since early in the first quarter.  But Ray was called for an offensive foul, LA went down and scored, and we never got that close again.  It may have been a ticky-tacky call, but you can't use your hands to create space for yourself at that point in the game.  It gives the refs an opening to call something, and they did.

I'm not saying Ray shouldn't have been on the floor at all.  I just think last night he should have played closer to 32 minutes, with TA, who was playing well, getting the other 10 minutes.  And Ray could still be on the court for the big shot at the end.

[LB3533]

You can't bench your horses, especially if you don't have an adequate replacement.

We really don't have anyone on the bench that we can interchange with Ray.

Have to keep playing the guys that got you here.

[wdleehi]

You can't bench your horses, especially if you don't have an adequate replacement.

We really don't have anyone on the bench that we can interchange with Ray.

Have to keep playing the guys that got you here.

I think he needed to be out there.


But I think he was option A to often down the stretch.

[jluce]

This is real simple, You do not bench a guy that can turn a game around with a couple of outside shots when there wasn't another player on the court that could hit outside shots.

Pierce was in foul trouble all night. That meant Tony Allen had to be playing. Once KG sat, without Ray, there's no threat of an outside shot and without a threat of an outside shot to space the floor LA packs it in and Boston will have major problems scoring.

Ray, even cold, is a threat to hit and keep hitting at any time. He must stay in the game as a threat to hit the outside shot so that space opens up for Perk, pierce, KG, Rondo and the rest of the Celtics to operate inside when they need to.

You don't bench Ray for that reason, because he's your best three point threat and because he just went off and the chances of him going 0 for the game the next game are unfathomable.

Cosign. TP to you sir. I said this in the other thread. People always want to go with another option...but think about this people.

Play Tony Allen and Rondo and take Ray out while Pierce is out of the game in foul trouble? Give me a f'n break.

[celtics2]

Ray is Ray. He's still shooting somewhere. Be it in a gym or school yard somewhere he's out there letting it go. In his den he probably has a hoop nailed up for crumpled paper shots. He's an addicted gunner. Doc is a player's coach. That why he didn't bench Allen.

[Bankshot]

This is real simple, You do not bench a guy that can turn a game around with a couple of outside shots when there wasn't another player on the court that could hit outside shots.

Pierce was in foul trouble all night. That meant Tony Allen had to be playing. Once KG sat, without Ray, there's no threat of an outside shot and without a threat of an outside shot to space the floor LA packs it in and Boston will have major problems scoring.

Ray, even cold, is a threat to hit and keep hitting at any time. He must stay in the game as a threat to hit the outside shot so that space opens up for Perk, pierce, KG, Rondo and the rest of the Celtics to operate inside when they need to.

You don't bench Ray for that reason, because he's your best three point threat and because he just went off and the chances of him going 0 for the game the next game are unfathomable.

Well, why did Doc bench Ray in the 2008 playoffs when he couldn't throw it in the ocean?

Edit:  I just heard that Tony Allen got kicked by Kobe and needed stitches, that's why he never got back in the game.  So I guess it's my mistake.  Although I wonder if Doc would have went with Tony had he been able to play.

[Crushmaster]

TP for you, Bankshot. I agree.  Doc isn't quite reflexive enough to suit my tastes.  We should be playing the players who are playing well at that very minute on the floor, not the ones who played well yesterday, or last week.  The past is the past, after all.  Ray's leash needs to be quite a bit shorter.  He obviously thinks he can miss shots and still play, so a hard lesson is in order.   I'm not advocating anything drastic, like pulling him after one miss, but when it got to three, I’m sure we were all screaming in unison, “Get the bum out of there, Doc!  What’s WRONG with you?”  It’s important to point out that emotions shouldn’t be part of this.  It should be a systematic approach, a formula.  I advocate something along the following lines: 

1) Each starter gets five FG attempts (we need a reasonable sample for this to work). 
2) Upon the fifth, his shooting % should be no less than 40% (2 for 5), or he’s going to the bench.
3) He can stay in the game as long as he remains at 40% or above.
4) Caveat – any consecutive three misses and he’s benched (we need to remain vigilant against the slightest sign of a cold streak).
5) Once benched, he goes to the end of the queue and does not return, unless everyone after him has similarly run through their shot allotments and necessarily been benched.  The cycle then repeats.
6) The next game’s starters are those who were able to remain in the game without being benched, or (if that number is less than five) the unbenched plus the those with the next highest FG % for the game.
7) Obviously, position must be taken into consideration, but only to the extent that we wouldn’t be starting five guards or five big men. The emphasis must remain on nightly results.   

Sounds Darwinian, but this systematic approach will inspire a “sink or swim” mentality, rather than its opposite, the complacency and moral putrefaction that is the result of the coddling "I have faith in my players" Doc BS that’s running this ship onto the rocks.  Who knows, perhaps Ray would work on his jumper between games if he felt the sword of Damocles perched above his career on a nightly basis, the righteous repercussion for his egregious lack of consideration for the fans paying his salary.
   

[nickagneta]

TP for you, Bankshot. I agree.  Doc isn't quite reflexive enough to suit my tastes.  We should be playing the players who are playing well at that very minute on the floor, not the ones who played well yesterday, or last week.  The past is the past, after all.  Ray's leash needs to be quite a bit shorter.  He obviously thinks he can miss shots and still play, so a hard lesson is in order.   I'm not advocating anything drastic, like pulling him after one miss, but when it got to three, I’m sure we were all screaming in unison, “Get the bum out of there, Doc!  What’s WRONG with you?”  It’s important to point out that emotions shouldn’t be part of this.  It should be a systematic approach, a formula.  I advocate something along the following lines: 

1) Each starter gets five FG attempts (we need a reasonable sample for this to work). 
2) Upon the fifth, his shooting % should be no less than 40% (2 for 5), or he’s going to the bench.
3) He can stay in the game as long as he remains at 40% or above.
4) Caveat – any consecutive three misses and he’s benched (we need to remain vigilant against the slightest sign of a cold streak).
5) Once benched, he goes to the end of the queue and does not return, unless everyone after him has similarly run through their shot allotments and necessarily been benched.  The cycle then repeats.
6) The next game’s starters are those who were able to remain in the game without being benched, or (if that number is less than five) the unbenched plus the those with the next highest FG % for the game.
7) Obviously, position must be taken into consideration, but only to the extent that we wouldn’t be starting five guards or five big men. The emphasis must remain on nightly results.   

Sounds Darwinian, but this systematic approach will inspire a “sink or swim” mentality, rather than its opposite, the complacency and moral putrefaction that is the result of the coddling "I have faith in my players" Doc BS that’s running this ship onto the rocks.  Who knows, perhaps Ray would work on his jumper between games if he felt the sword of Damocles perched above his career on a nightly basis, the righteous repercussion for his egregious lack of consideration for the fans paying his salary.
   

Red Auerbach would laugh hysterically if he thought for one minute any coach at any level of basketball would institute such a system.

Red, the best coach in basketball, was always a huge believer in being consistent with your players and being less complicated. He only had 5-7 plays he ever ran and he always called them the same things so it was up to the opposition to stop them. But he was a firm believer in sticking with those that got you there and running the same stuff again and again with the same people because repetition bred perfection and perfection was hard to stop.

He was also a huge believer that shooters shot themselves out of being cold. The more they shot when cold the more likely they were to get hot.

Basketball isn't a game of instant and immediate and constant substitutions. It's about rhythm and cohesion and about keeping that up through extended playing.

Your system and the benching of Ray because he was cold would be thought to be incredulous by Red and I would have to agree with him. Just don't ever see anything like that ever being employed in basketball, ever.

[Bankshot]

TP for you, Bankshot. I agree.  Doc isn't quite reflexive enough to suit my tastes.  We should be playing the players who are playing well at that very minute on the floor, not the ones who played well yesterday, or last week.  The past is the past, after all.  Ray's leash needs to be quite a bit shorter.  He obviously thinks he can miss shots and still play, so a hard lesson is in order.   I'm not advocating anything drastic, like pulling him after one miss, but when it got to three, I’m sure we were all screaming in unison, “Get the bum out of there, Doc!  What’s WRONG with you?”  It’s important to point out that emotions shouldn’t be part of this.  It should be a systematic approach, a formula.  I advocate something along the following lines: 

1) Each starter gets five FG attempts (we need a reasonable sample for this to work). 
2) Upon the fifth, his shooting % should be no less than 40% (2 for 5), or he’s going to the bench.
3) He can stay in the game as long as he remains at 40% or above.
4) Caveat – any consecutive three misses and he’s benched (we need to remain vigilant against the slightest sign of a cold streak).
5) Once benched, he goes to the end of the queue and does not return, unless everyone after him has similarly run through their shot allotments and necessarily been benched.  The cycle then repeats.
6) The next game’s starters are those who were able to remain in the game without being benched, or (if that number is less than five) the unbenched plus the those with the next highest FG % for the game.
7) Obviously, position must be taken into consideration, but only to the extent that we wouldn’t be starting five guards or five big men. The emphasis must remain on nightly results.   

Sounds Darwinian, but this systematic approach will inspire a “sink or swim” mentality, rather than its opposite, the complacency and moral putrefaction that is the result of the coddling "I have faith in my players" Doc BS that’s running this ship onto the rocks.  Who knows, perhaps Ray would work on his jumper between games if he felt the sword of Damocles perched above his career on a nightly basis, the righteous repercussion for his egregious lack of consideration for the fans paying his salary.
   

Wow.  I wouldn't do that!  I just wanted to bench Ray for the rest of game 3 only.  He starts game 4, because he'll probably be back to normal the next game.  I'm not trying to dis Ray in any way, love the guy.  I just think that this is the Finals and you can't give the guy the whole game to get hot, especially when his replacement was playing well (of course I find out later that Tony had to have stitches).

[pearljammer10]

I dont get why at the end of the game he continued running plays for Ray when KG was on fire and toasting Gasol... Why not just keep going to KG in the post when its working the most.