Why Doc doesn't experiment with Lineup Changes?

[kozlodoev]

problem is no player good or bad can play well if they have no idea if they are going to play or not.  Doc's never been good and giving consistent minutes to player or giving them enough rope to have some ups and downs.  He is way to random and it doesn't allow anyone to get into a rhythm or to get chemistry with other players..

When it comes to giving minutes to establish rhythm, Doc's priority has always been the rhythm of his best players (which is part of the reason we're having this conversation in the first place). Can't say I blame him.

Wow.  You're not blaming Doc for something.  I am as shocked as shocked could be.

And Doc's priority is not always the rhythm of his best players or he wouldn't have kept Rondo's minutes so restricted during his rookie year.

You're always shocked at something, but this is not my problem.

And Rondo wasn't disproportionately better than his minutes indicate at any point in his rookie year, another shocker. The guy shot below .400 from the field in 4 of his first 5 months in the league.

[MBunge]

Not this Indiana game -- the previous one[/quote]

You mean the one where Pierce went 3-17 and had 5 turnovers?  The one where KG played 34 minutes and was -14?  The one where Bass played 25 minutes and was -10?  But it was Stiemsma's play in that game that DEMANDED Doc cut his minutes to almost nothing?

Mike

[MBunge]

I've explained multiple times in this thread what the reasons are for his decreased playing time.

I do not think you understand what the word "explained" means.

Mike

[MBunge]

And Rondo wasn't disproportionately better than his minutes indicate at any point in his rookie year, another shocker. The guy shot below .400 from the field in 4 of his first 5 months in the league.

So, you're saying Delonte West and Sebastian Telfair were playing the point BETTER than Rondo was that year?  'Cause that was your argument, that Doc always focused on the rhythm of his "best" players.

Mike

[jc3celticsphan]

no chemistry + out of shape = 4-8

[kozlodoev]

Not this Indiana game -- the previous one

You mean the one where Pierce went 3-17 and had 5 turnovers?  The one where KG played 34 minutes and was -14?  The one where Bass played 25 minutes and was -10?  But it was Stiemsma's play in that game that DEMANDED Doc cut his minutes to almost nothing?

Because how Pierce played really affects Stiemsma's minutes, right?

And yes, both Bass and Garnett (and O'Neal too, for that matter) actually played better than Stiemsma in this game, who would have thought. Which is more of an indication of Stiemsma's performance, if anything.

[kozlodoev]

And Rondo wasn't disproportionately better than his minutes indicate at any point in his rookie year, another shocker. The guy shot below .400 from the field in 4 of his first 5 months in the league.

So, you're saying Delonte West and Sebastian Telfair were playing the point BETTER than Rondo was that year?  'Cause that was your argument, that Doc always focused on the rhythm of his "best" players.

For the most part of his rookies season, Rajon Rondo was not our best solution at PG.

You seem not to understand that a player's capability to contribute is not a constant over time.

[kozlodoev]

I've explained multiple times in this thread what the reasons are for his decreased playing time.

I do not think you understand what the word "explained" means.

And I don't think you understand English. Any other things about our personalities you'd like to discuss? 

[wdleehi]

Warning: This is a no flame zone.  Please stay away from the trap of the flame war.  -  wdleehi

[kozlodoev]

Warning: This is a no flame zone.  Please stay away from the trap of the flame war.  -  wdleehi

I think it's still into the land of (more or less) good-natured ribbing.

I'm sure I drive Mike crazy, based on what I recall about most of our conversations. Hopefully, there aren't any hard feelings.

[wdleehi]

Warning: This is a no flame zone.  Please stay away from the trap of the flame war.  -  wdleehi

I think it's still into the land of (more or less) good-natured ribbing.

I'm sure I drive Mike crazy, based on what I recall about most of our conversations. Hopefully, there aren't any hard feelings.

I am just trying to keep the conversation from moving that way.  It isn't there yet. 

[European NBA fan]

But Doc has continued to give him time. 

Again, Steamer's playing time in the last 4 games has been 3, 1, 9 and 1 minute.  That's not because of matchups or his play or other guys on the team playing better.  That's just Doc deciding he's not going to play him.

Mike

I think it's quite the opposite. It means that he trusts him enough to give him minutes even in tough matchups, even though he is not in the same league as JO, KG and Bass yet. When playing lesser teams, he will probably get more minutes.
 
Stiemsma is probably no. 10 or 11 in the rotation right now, and based on offensive production and matchups, Doc is trying to get a small lineup working (his old favorite with Bass playing the role of Big Baby). And he will probably keep going with this, because it has big upside.

[Chief]

Doc will make lineup changes as long as it does not involve the Big Three.  They will start and finish the game.


Rondo
Ray
Pierce
KG
Bass

Rondo
Ray
Pietrus
Pierce
KG


These lineups look familiar. It won't change until injury, Big Three trade, or Doc is no longer coach.

[MBunge]

Not this Indiana game -- the previous one

You mean the one where Pierce went 3-17 and had 5 turnovers?  The one where KG played 34 minutes and was -14?  The one where Bass played 25 minutes and was -10?  But it was Stiemsma's play in that game that DEMANDED Doc cut his minutes to almost nothing?

Because how Pierce played really affects Stiemsma's minutes, right?

And yes, both Bass and Garnett (and O'Neal too, for that matter) actually played better than Stiemsma in this game, who would have thought. Which is more of an indication of Stiemsma's performance, if anything.

Your argument was that Stiemsma's performance in the Indiana game was so horrible that it led to Doc cutting his minutes to almost nothing.  Yet you've offered no metric other than a couple of bad plays to justify that.  EVERYBODY plays poorly and if you only play them 7 minutes, that stretch of bad play may be all they get.  You don't have to look hard to find several minute stretches where everyone on this team has played like crap.  So, why is a supposedly bad performance against Indiana held against Stiemsma to such an extent that Doc played him just 1, 3 and 1 minute in 3 of the next 4 games?

Mike

[kozlodoev]

Not this Indiana game -- the previous one

You mean the one where Pierce went 3-17 and had 5 turnovers?  The one where KG played 34 minutes and was -14?  The one where Bass played 25 minutes and was -10?  But it was Stiemsma's play in that game that DEMANDED Doc cut his minutes to almost nothing?

Because how Pierce played really affects Stiemsma's minutes, right?

And yes, both Bass and Garnett (and O'Neal too, for that matter) actually played better than Stiemsma in this game, who would have thought. Which is more of an indication of Stiemsma's performance, if anything.

Your argument was that Stiemsma's performance in the Indiana game was so horrible that it led to Doc cutting his minutes to almost nothing.  Yet you've offered no metric other than a couple of bad plays to justify that.  EVERYBODY plays poorly and if you only play them 7 minutes, that stretch of bad play may be all they get.  You don't have to look hard to find several minute stretches where everyone on this team has played like crap.  So, why is a supposedly bad performance against Indiana held against Stiemsma to such an extent that Doc played him just 1, 3 and 1 minute in 3 of the next 4 games?

Stiemsma is giving up a PER of 24(!) to opposing centers, head and shoulders above (or if you wish, below) everyone else on our team. How is that for a metric?