E'Twaun vs Avery

[MBunge]

I appreciate what Bradley and Moore have done for us, but I seriously doubt that playing them extended minutes during the first thirteen games would have improved our poor start.

It's not that they would have made the Celtics into world beaters.  It's an example that even when the team was playing poorly, Doc was simply not going to play Moore.  He wasn't even going to play him just to see what the heck might happen.

Mike

[Celtics18]

I appreciate what Bradley and Moore have done for us, but I seriously doubt that playing them extended minutes during the first thirteen games would have improved our poor start.

It's not that they would have made the Celtics into world beaters.  It's an example that even when the team was playing poorly, Doc was simply not going to play Moore.  He wasn't even going to play him just to see what the heck might happen.

Mike

 Doc has actually made extremely full use of the entire roster so far this season.  Everyone but JJ has been a member of the rotation at some point during the season. 

Sure, you can say that it's just due to injury but in other years or on other teams the rotation may just have been shortened if guys weren't available on a given night.

Doc, however, has consistently been going 10 to 11 deep in this campaign.  Still, though, he's getting flak for not playing the young guys enough. 

JJ will get his when he's ready and when the situation calls for it.  I hope it's sooner rather than later, but I'm not going to ask Doc to force it.

[guava_wrench]

I appreciate what Bradley and Moore have done for us, but I seriously doubt that playing them extended minutes during the first thirteen games would have improved our poor start.

It's not that they would have made the Celtics into world beaters.  It's an example that even when the team was playing poorly, Doc was simply not going to play Moore.  He wasn't even going to play him just to see what the heck might happen.

Mike

That is your opinion. It is easy to make claims like that when we only have access to one version of reality.

I find it hard to critique a coach based on a 'what-if' scenario.

[PosImpos]

Imagine that, you give young players time, despite their weaknesses / mistakes, and they develop rapidly.

Who knew?

Like Pruitt.

Counter examples are not lacking.

But unless you give the players time, you'll never know whether they're a Pruitt or a Bradley.

So you have to do a cost-benefit analysis. You can't give up wins to give everyone an extended trial. Sometimes this means let them get familiar first and when they look ready, start trying them out.

I agree that it's a cost-benefit analysis.  It just seems to me that when he makes that analysis, Doc favors going with the "finished product" veterans -- guys he trusts -- over sacrificing short-term success for the sake of developing young role players, which will take the burden off the veterans later.

Again, I point to a guy like Greg Popovich who in the past few years has staunchly refused to play his veterans big minutes, even against good opponents, and has instead given significant rotation minutes to role players (late round picks, undrafteds, castoffs, foreigners) during the regular season.  This has given the Spurs the double benefit of saving their veterans and identifying and integrating a number of productive, relatively young (pre-prime) contributors.

It's very rare that we see Doc make that kind of sacrifice.  Doc only seems willing to keep the main guys on the bench for long stretches if we already have a big lead, and he can't seem to resist trusting veterans over young players, especially in games against tough opponents.

I don't think you've been paying attention so far this season.  Doc's rotations have been very Popovichian, with 14 guys on the roster having played a significant role at some point or another. 

That's what we're discussing in this thread, though -- Doc's been forced into that due to injuries.  No way would we have seen this number of players getting a shot to carve a role unless Pierce, Rondo, JO, and Ray had all missed significant time.

When the roster has been mostly intact, we've still seen Doc run the Big 3 ragged in games against tougher opponents, and favored older guys (like Dooling and JO) over the younger guys.

[guava_wrench]

That's what we're discussing in this thread, though -- Doc's been forced into that due to injuries.  No way would we have seen this number of players getting a shot to carve a role unless Pierce, Rondo, JO, and Ray had all missed significant time.

When the roster has been mostly intact, we've still seen Doc run the Big 3 ragged in games against tougher opponents, and favored older guys (like Dooling and JO) over the younger guys.

The injuries explain the low games played count for players. They do not explain the low MPG for everyone except Rondo. Rondo is at 36 MPG, Ray and Paul are at 33 MPG, KG and Bass at 30.

Regarding favoring 'older' guys, I don't see that. Quis is older but he lost his minutes at SG. What happens is the players that don't know what they are doing are aren't up to snuff lose minutes to those who know what they are doing and are more effective. This could mean Scal riding the pine, or JJJ not getting minutes.

Considering House lasted on the Celtics as long as Pruitt (and was still in the league when Pruitt was gone), you can see that investing in a young guy is not necessarily any more valuable than investing in a veteran. Look at Fisher versus Farmar and Brown. The Lakers developed the young guys, but Fisher is still in town, loyal to the Lakers and not looking elsewhere for a big payday. It turns out that when the Lakers re-acquired Fisher, it may have been a bigger investment in their future than drafting Farmar or trading for Shannon Brown.

I suspect that Doc likes Avery, Moore, and JJJ as much as any of us. That is why Doc and Danny wanted the guys on the team. So I am unconvinced by arguments that Doc doesn't want to play these guys.

[nickagneta]

I appreciate what Bradley and Moore have done for us, but I seriously doubt that playing them extended minutes during the first thirteen games would have improved our poor start.

It's not that they would have made the Celtics into world beaters.  It's an example that even when the team was playing poorly, Doc was simply not going to play Moore.  He wasn't even going to play him just to see what the heck might happen.

Mike

Doc hasn't had to play either player now. Well, maybe one of them. But Bradley has been seeing minutes all year long and Marquis Daniels has been healthy and played the point for Doc in the past. Doc easily could have used Daniels at the point but clearly feels more comfortable using Moore and Bradley because Daniels has played so poorly this year.

So there goes the "Doc only plays young guys do to injury" theory. AB has played all year long and ETM is playing and Daniels isn't even though he is healthy.

[nickagneta]

If the Celtics had been able to develop a similar supporting cast for their core group -- which is a good deal better than the Spurs' core group -- I think there's a good chance they'd have had more success in the post-season the last couple of years.

You're not serious with this statement are you?

They were six good minutes and on the wrong side of every whistle away from winning it one year and a horrible mid-season trade and Rondo having his shoulder dislocated by Wade away from posing a serious threat last year.

They didn't go farther because they didn't develop their young bench in those years? You're joking, right?

[guava_wrench]

If the Celtics had been able to develop a similar supporting cast for their core group -- which is a good deal better than the Spurs' core group -- I think there's a good chance they'd have had more success in the post-season the last couple of years.

You're not serious with this statement are you?

They were six good minutes and on the wrong side of every whistle away from winning it one year and a horrible mid-season trade and Rondo having his shoulder dislocated by Wade away from posing a serious threat last year.

They didn't go farther because they didn't develop their young bench in those years? You're joking, right?

Actually they were a Perk injury and Sheed bad back away from another title one year, and a Rondo elbow injury away from a run. If Sheed's back doesn't fail him, he continues to play down low and Sheed and KG are able to cover Bynum and Pau.

As you are pointing out, neither of these have any connection to failing to develop young guys (as if we had any worth developing).

[aporel#18]

Great OP, TP for Nick. I love them both, too.

I think Avery is still too raw (breaking news  ), he hadn't much of a college career, but in the future I see him as a PG, not a SG, even if his jumpshot improves a lot. IMO, he's going to be a good distributor, but he'll need a lot more confidence and learning time. He's not bringing the ball up the court, so it's not that strange that he isn't very good at assists.

On the other hand, Moore could play some pg, but he really is, in my opinion, a SG. He had a great college career, and he's a better all-around player than Bradley right now, but he doesn't seem comfortable at the point. I think he should play off the ball, he can be a scoring machine if the point duties go to Dooling, Quis or Pierce.

As for defense, Bradley is great on-ball, but when Cleveland played Irving off the ball, he was caught in almost every pick. He'll get better. E'Twaun is showing good effort, but he hasn't the athleticism of Bradley. Not bad for two youngins.

[PosImpos]

If the Celtics had been able to develop a similar supporting cast for their core group -- which is a good deal better than the Spurs' core group -- I think there's a good chance they'd have had more success in the post-season the last couple of years.

You're not serious with this statement are you?

They were six good minutes and on the wrong side of every whistle away from winning it one year and a horrible mid-season trade and Rondo having his shoulder dislocated by Wade away from posing a serious threat last year.

They didn't go farther because they didn't develop their young bench in those years? You're joking, right?

They didn't go further because they didn't have a stronger supporting cast.  They were less able to deal with injuries, didn't have home court advantage when they could have had it (if they had done better in the regular season), and rode the Big 3 much more throughout every game, meaning they were tired late.

There's no guarantee that having a better supporting cast would have made the ultimate difference in any of those years . . . but I think it's silly to suggest it wouldn't have made a very significant difference.  

Poor depth -- and in recent years a noted lack of youth -- has been an enormous weakness of this team throughout the Big 3 era, with the exception, perhaps, of the '08 team.


Now, certainly a large part of that falls on Ainge for not doing a better job drafting and signing guys.  But the organization as a whole, from the top all the way down to Doc, has been average at best at acquiring, developing, and integrating young talent during the Big 3 era.  As a whole they've been too content to rely on guys who were already on the roster and any veteran castoff willing to come here for cheap to chase a ring.

[KGs Knee]

The careers of the guys who passed through the Celtics under Doc seem to show that he did a pretty good job evaluating who was worth minutes. A lot of these young guys need minutes so they can one day be a Keyon Dooling type player. If you already have the developed player, why not play that player instead of the guy who isn't at that level yet and only hopes to one day be at par with the vet?

Exactly!  TP for you sir.

[looseball]

If the Celtics had been able to develop a similar supporting cast for their core group -- which is a good deal better than the Spurs' core group -- I think there's a good chance they'd have had more success in the post-season the last couple of years.

You're not serious with this statement are you?

They were six good minutes and on the wrong side of every whistle away from winning it one year and a horrible mid-season trade and Rondo having his shoulder dislocated by Wade away from posing a serious threat last year.

They didn't go farther because they didn't develop their young bench in those years? You're joking, right?

Actually they were a Perk injury and Sheed bad back away from another title one year, and a Rondo elbow injury away from a run. If Sheed's back doesn't fail him, he continues to play down low and Sheed and KG are able to cover Bynum and Pau.

As you are pointing out, neither of these have any connection to failing to develop young guys (as if we had any worth developing).

When you explain away lost opportunities as basically a matter of injuries (even to role players), it seems like it is only possible to win it all when every player on the roster is in perfectly good health.  No team can win with anything less.  Or is it just the Celtics?

[PosImpos]

I think it's important to make a distinction with regard to young players.

A young player, when he comes into the league, is not like an unwrapped present.  You don't simply get the player on your team, put him on the floor, and discover a definite product.  It's not the case that a rookie is simply a NBA level rotation player or not, end of story.  So much depends on how they are used and developed, what kind of support and attention they get, and yes, how much playing time they are given -- particularly in their first year or two in the league.

At the same time, you can't just play a guy a bunch of minutes and be certain he'll become a useful player.  Some guys are just not good enough to play in the league, or just won't fit in certain roles, systems, and teams.

Good drafting and good coaching -- which includes a willingness to give young players a chance, even if they're somewhat raw or don't have an obvious role -- are required to develop productive young role players.


Even when your team is really good, and has a lot of talent at the top, I think it's important to be willing to let young players play meaningful minutes -- not just garbage time, not just with and against other scrubs, not just when injuries hit.  I think if you do that, as long as you do a decent job bringing in players with some talent and good work ethic, that investment will pay off later.  Depth is so important, especially when you have an older team (and most contenders seem to be on the older side).

[clover]

It looks to me like Doc's force-feeding of minutes has made something out of Bradley, Moore is coming along nicely and 3J has improved already.

The guy who seems to have regressed is Stiemer.  I suspect that he, like Sasha, is a player who can get down on himself and get into a negative spiral.  IMO it's just like managing people in general--not everybody reacts well tot he same approach.

But if the point in Doc playing the young guys is to have their games progress, I'd say the early returns are looking good for three of his four young players.

[nickagneta]

If the Celtics had been able to develop a similar supporting cast for their core group -- which is a good deal better than the Spurs' core group -- I think there's a good chance they'd have had more success in the post-season the last couple of years.

You're not serious with this statement are you?

They were six good minutes and on the wrong side of every whistle away from winning it one year and a horrible mid-season trade and Rondo having his shoulder dislocated by Wade away from posing a serious threat last year.

They didn't go farther because they didn't develop their young bench in those years? You're joking, right?

They didn't go further because they didn't have a stronger supporting cast.  They were less able to deal with injuries, didn't have home court advantage when they could have had it (if they had done better in the regular season), and rode the Big 3 much more throughout every game, meaning they were tired late.

There's no guarantee that having a better supporting cast would have made the ultimate difference in any of those years . . . but I think it's silly to suggest it wouldn't have made a very significant difference.  

Poor depth -- and in recent years a noted lack of youth -- has been an enormous weakness of this team throughout the Big 3 era, with the exception, perhaps, of the '08 team.


Now, certainly a large part of that falls on Ainge for not doing a better job drafting and signing guys.  But the organization as a whole, from the top all the way down to Doc, has been average at best at acquiring, developing, and integrating young talent during the Big 3 era.  As a whole they've been too content to rely on guys who were already on the roster and any veteran castoff willing to come here for cheap to chase a ring.

This is patently false.

2011 bench during playoffs
Nenad Krstic
Glen Davis
Jeff Green
Delonte West
Carlos Arroyo
Sasha Pavlovic
Troy Murphy
Von Wafer
Shaquille O'Neal
Avery Bradley

There was one...only one...young player on the roster to be developed last year and whenever he got some time on the floor he was GOD awful. We did not lose due to lack of depth last year we lost because our best player who was expected to make a huge difference against a team with a horrid group of PGs got injured.

2010 bench during the playoffs
Rasheed Wallace
Glen Davis
Tony Allen
Nate Robinson
Marquis Daniels
Sheldon Williams
Michael Finley
Brian Scalabrine

The only young players we had that year were garbage and we traded away for Nate Robinson. Neither Lester Hudson nor JR Giddens are in the league anymore and Bill Walker hangs on by a thread in NY because the Knicks invested every penny they had into three players and have to keep minimum level scrubs on the bench. The Knicks currently have what might be the worst bench in the league.

So clearly there were no young players available to develop that year either and the only reason we lost was not due to a lack of depth, the team was deep, it was due to injury.