Brad Stevens: There will be no tanking

[gar]

The idea that you have to tank to win a championship is absurd and simply not born out by the facts.

Danny was good at developing assets that he was able to turn in to the big 3. Those were not banner years; but they were not tanking. They didn't tank to get Bird or Pierce or Rondo or Olynyk for that matter. We have lots of picks that can be used to move up in the draft if need be; but to pin your hope on drafting Wiggins would delay the rebuilding process to 3-5 years. As it is, we are in a 2-3 year time frame if you build around Rondo and Green.

[PhoSita]

developing the players we have on the team,

Not that you said this but something I want to point something out.

You don't develop players by giving them playing time. Players are developed through coaching off the court not playing on the court. Players are developed in practice, in the weight room, in the video room, through studying and repetition. Once players can prove they can do the things they have to do in those areas, they are rewarded with playing time and execute all the things they have learned in their development.

I don't think there is a professional coach anywhere in the world who doesn't think this way.

At times through injuries, suspensions, roster creation, etc., does it become necessary for a coach to throw players into games that do not deserve playing time? Sure.

But if you think Stevens will be playing Olynyk, Sully, Melo, Iverson, Pressey and other super young players to develop them, I think you will be very disappointed when you see Humphries, Bogans, Wallace, Bass, and Lee getting regular rotation minutes. Why? Because they will be better than the young guys and adjust to new systems and the expectations of what the coach wants faster and better than some, most, if not all of the young guys.

I forget who said it -- maybe it was David Thorpe -- but playing time is the "royal jelly" for young players.  You absolutely develop players like giving them playing time.  That's the most effective way of improving them.

However, if you'd read what I've said before multiple times in this thread, I don't expect Stevens to play less deserving young players ahead of established veterans just for the sake of development.  Stevens should expect guys to earn their minutes.  I wouldn't have it any other way.

Again, I see this as an issue Ainge has to deal with -- if he wants certain guys to get more playing time, he has to clear the way.  If he gives the coach a roster with a lot of competition for playing time between veterans and young guys, he'll need to accept that the coach will figure out his own rotation.

[PhoSita]

Okay, fine, fair enough.  People are very sensitive about the use of the "T" word these days.

I wasn´t attacking you, man.

Yep, I know. No worries.

I tend to think ultimately whether we're "tanking" or "rebuilding" will be decided by the media based on how many games we end up winning. 

Kind of a results-based narrative.  I don't expect to see the team make any blatant trying-to-lose moves, because you actually rarely see such moves on a day to day basis in the NBA. 

You just see alleged "tank" trades e.g. Philly trading Holiday for an injured lottery pick.

[chambers]

I don't get why the tank crowd hates this hire. If he fails then the Celtics get a lottery pick. If he succeeds then the team comprised of young promising players get into the playoffs and would be more attractive to free agents in 2014. I don't see how you guys lose either way.

I'm in the tank crowd and I love the hiring. He's completely inexperienced at the NBA level. So are many of our best players are inexperienced.
Doesn't mean they won't be great one day- they'll just probably be very poor for a year or two at least as they learn the ropes and adjust.
Playoffs? Very funny.

[nickagneta]

developing the players we have on the team,

Not that you said this but something I want to point something out.

You don't develop players by giving them playing time. Players are developed through coaching off the court not playing on the court. Players are developed in practice, in the weight room, in the video room, through studying and repetition. Once players can prove they can do the things they have to do in those areas, they are rewarded with playing time and execute all the things they have learned in their development.

I don't think there is a professional coach anywhere in the world who doesn't think this way.

At times through injuries, suspensions, roster creation, etc., does it become necessary for a coach to throw players into games that do not deserve playing time? Sure.

But if you think Stevens will be playing Olynyk, Sully, Melo, Iverson, Pressey and other super young players to develop them, I think you will be very disappointed when you see Humphries, Bogans, Wallace, Bass, and Lee getting regular rotation minutes. Why? Because they will be better than the young guys and adjust to new systems and the expectations of what the coach wants faster and better than some, most, if not all of the young guys.

I forget who said it -- maybe it was David Thorpe -- but playing time is the "royal jelly" for young players.  You absolutely develop players like giving them playing time.  That's the most effective way of improving them.

However, if you'd read what I've said before multiple times in this thread, I don't expect Stevens to play less deserving young players ahead of established veterans just for the sake of development.  Stevens should expect guys to earn their minutes.  I wouldn't have it any other way.

Again, I see this as an issue Ainge has to deal with -- if he wants certain guys to get more playing time, he has to clear the way.  If he gives the coach a roster with a lot of competition for playing time between veterans and young guys, he'll need to accept that the coach will figure out his own rotation.

David Thorpe the journalist said that? Well, I think I'll stick with my theory that playing time is earned and players develop off court in practice not on it in games.

Red Auerbach once said something like (paraphrasing): the best way to develop players is through competition for playing time.

That competition would take place in practice.

[Fafnir]

The "royal jelly" thing is about a lot more than playing time. Its about instilling confidence and fitting them into your system as well.

But it presupposes players are going to be working hard on their game to reach their potential. It also doesn't mention the very necessary accountability that comes with responsibility.

And David Thorpe is in the business of pumping his clients first and foremost.

[PhoSita]

David Thorpe the journalist said that? Well, I think I'll stick with my theory that playing time is earned and players develop off court in practice not on it in games.

Red Auerbach once said something like (paraphrasing): the best way to develop players is through competition for playing time.

That competition would take place in practice.

David Thorpe is more than just a journalist.  He works with a lot of NBA players to help them improve their game.  For example, I know that he's worked a lot with Kevin Martin and Joakim Noah.


Also, I don't know that I agree with your interpretation of the Red quote.  Players compete to earn a playing spot in practice, sure.  But it's actually earning that playing time and getting to play hard in actual games against live competition that helps players develop, not practicing against their teammates.

Furthermore, whether a player keeps their spot in the rotation depends on how they perform when they're out there.  So playing time is still earned in games, too.

[PhoSita]

The "royal jelly" thing is about a lot more than playing time. Its about instilling confidence and fitting them into your system as well.

But it presupposes players are going to be working hard on their game to reach their potential. It also doesn't mention the very necessary accountability that comes with responsibility.

And David Thorpe is in the business of pumping his clients first and foremost.

All of what you said is well-taken.  You shouldn't give players time on the floor if they haven't earned it.  But I've reiterated that multiple times already.

[Finkelskyhook]

There's a difference between developing younger players and tanking.  We developed nothing the last half of 06-07.  We sat out healthy young players and a healthy Pierce to secure a spot. In sitting out a healthy Pierce you essentially already insured a lottery pick.  Why sit out everybody else?  By playing your young players instead of borrowing subpar NBDL talent...You're at least putting a presentable product forward... In two of the three games I went to that year... Rivers found combinations that made big runs.  As soon as they got close they were pulled and we never saw the combination again. It was overt and pathetic. They were trying to lose. Short of somehow acquiring a one-in-a-million player like Garnett...How do you fumigate that culture?  I would contend that you don't.  It's a disservice to the paying customer...It's a disservice to the players...It's a disservice to the league. It's a disservice to the sport. 

[nickagneta]

There's a difference between developing younger players and tanking.  We developed nothing the last half of 06-07.  We sat out healthy young players and a healthy Pierce to secure a spot. In sitting out a healthy Pierce you essentially already insured a lottery pick.  Why sit out everybody else?  By playing your young players instead of borrowing subpar NBDL talent...You're at least putting a presentable product forward... In two of the three games I went to that year... Rivers found combinations that made big runs.  As soon as they got close they were pulled and we never saw the combination again. It was overt and pathetic. They were trying to lose. Short of somehow acquiring a one-in-a-million player like Garnett...How do you fumigate that culture?  I would contend that you don't.  It's a disservice to the paying customer...It's a disservice to the players...It's a disservice to the league. It's a disservice to the sport.

TP. Went to many games in the second half of that year and to see the team fight so hard to keep things close against the best teams only to have the rug pulled out from under them in the 4th quarter with Doc's overt tanking measures was sickening.

[JHTruth]

There's a difference between developing younger players and tanking.  We developed nothing the last half of 06-07.  We sat out healthy young players and a healthy Pierce to secure a spot. In sitting out a healthy Pierce you essentially already insured a lottery pick.  Why sit out everybody else?  By playing your young players instead of borrowing subpar NBDL talent...You're at least putting a presentable product forward... In two of the three games I went to that year... Rivers found combinations that made big runs.  As soon as they got close they were pulled and we never saw the combination again. It was overt and pathetic. They were trying to lose. Short of somehow acquiring a one-in-a-million player like Garnett...How do you fumigate that culture?  I would contend that you don't.  It's a disservice to the paying customer...It's a disservice to the players...It's a disservice to the league. It's a disservice to the sport.

TP. Went to many games in the second half of that year and to see the team fight so hard to keep things close against the best teams only to have the rug pulled out from under them in the 4th quarter with Doc's overt tanking measures was sickening.

Really? It was "sickening"? Aren't you being a tad melodramatic? I mean everyone knew we were tanking like Rommel in North Africa. Why be so invested? We weren;t going to win a championship. We will most likely be horrible this year, why not relax and enjoy the ride. Besides last time you got 5 years of highly competitive ball out of it. Would you trade a few tanks this year to get another 5 years of high-level ball? Lighten up a little

[nickagneta]

There's a difference between developing younger players and tanking.  We developed nothing the last half of 06-07.  We sat out healthy young players and a healthy Pierce to secure a spot. In sitting out a healthy Pierce you essentially already insured a lottery pick.  Why sit out everybody else?  By playing your young players instead of borrowing subpar NBDL talent...You're at least putting a presentable product forward... In two of the three games I went to that year... Rivers found combinations that made big runs.  As soon as they got close they were pulled and we never saw the combination again. It was overt and pathetic. They were trying to lose. Short of somehow acquiring a one-in-a-million player like Garnett...How do you fumigate that culture?  I would contend that you don't.  It's a disservice to the paying customer...It's a disservice to the players...It's a disservice to the league. It's a disservice to the sport.

TP. Went to many games in the second half of that year and to see the team fight so hard to keep things close against the best teams only to have the rug pulled out from under them in the 4th quarter with Doc's overt tanking measures was sickening.

Really? It was "sickening"? Aren't you being a tad melodramatic? I mean everyone knew we were tanking like Rommel in North Africa. Why be so invested? We weren;t going to win a championship. We will most likely be horrible this year, why not relax and enjoy the ride. Besides last time you got 5 years of highly competitive ball out of it. Would you trade a few tanks this year to get another 5 years of high-level ball? Lighten up a little

Thanks for the advice but I think I will ignore it. I find overt tanking very distasteful. And that tanking didn't get us a championship or competitive team. Very good drafting by Ainge in the previous years, very good player development by Doc in the previous years and the opportunity to land the best two players available for trade that off season within a month got them that championship.

Tanking didn't land the C's a top 3 pick, We had the 5th pick. Whether we had the 5th, 6th, 8th or 9th pick that year, Ray Allen would still have been coming to Boston.

[JHTruth]

There's a difference between developing younger players and tanking.  We developed nothing the last half of 06-07.  We sat out healthy young players and a healthy Pierce to secure a spot. In sitting out a healthy Pierce you essentially already insured a lottery pick.  Why sit out everybody else?  By playing your young players instead of borrowing subpar NBDL talent...You're at least putting a presentable product forward... In two of the three games I went to that year... Rivers found combinations that made big runs.  As soon as they got close they were pulled and we never saw the combination again. It was overt and pathetic. They were trying to lose. Short of somehow acquiring a one-in-a-million player like Garnett...How do you fumigate that culture?  I would contend that you don't.  It's a disservice to the paying customer...It's a disservice to the players...It's a disservice to the league. It's a disservice to the sport.

TP. Went to many games in the second half of that year and to see the team fight so hard to keep things close against the best teams only to have the rug pulled out from under them in the 4th quarter with Doc's overt tanking measures was sickening.

Really? It was "sickening"? Aren't you being a tad melodramatic? I mean everyone knew we were tanking like Rommel in North Africa. Why be so invested? We weren;t going to win a championship. We will most likely be horrible this year, why not relax and enjoy the ride. Besides last time you got 5 years of highly competitive ball out of it. Would you trade a few tanks this year to get another 5 years of high-level ball? Lighten up a little

Thanks for the advice but I think I will ignore it. I find overt tanking very distasteful. And that tanking didn't get us a championship or competitive team. Very good drafting by Ainge in the previous years, very good player development by Doc in the previous years and the opportunity to land the best two players available for trade that off season within a month got them that championship.

Tanking didn't land the C's a top 3 pick, We had the 5th pick. Whether we had the 5th, 6th, 8th or 9th pick that year, Ray Allen would still have been coming to Boston.

Hearing about Hernandez killing people is "sickening" and "very distasteful". Losing a few games easier that you were going to lose anyway is the rational thing to do given the system.

And we won't ever know if we would have had Ray with the 8 or 12th pick will we?

[nickagneta]

Semantics, I am sure, but I find Aaron Hernandez to be things I can not convey on this site without being banned. Losing games on purpose to me, is sickening and distasteful. But I guess its all a matter of context.

[chambers]

There's a difference between developing younger players and tanking.  We developed nothing the last half of 06-07.  We sat out healthy young players and a healthy Pierce to secure a spot. In sitting out a healthy Pierce you essentially already insured a lottery pick.  Why sit out everybody else?  By playing your young players instead of borrowing subpar NBDL talent...You're at least putting a presentable product forward... In two of the three games I went to that year... Rivers found combinations that made big runs.  As soon as they got close they were pulled and we never saw the combination again. It was overt and pathetic. They were trying to lose. Short of somehow acquiring a one-in-a-million player like Garnett...How do you fumigate that culture?  I would contend that you don't.  It's a disservice to the paying customer...It's a disservice to the players...It's a disservice to the league. It's a disservice to the sport.

TP. Went to many games in the second half of that year and to see the team fight so hard to keep things close against the best teams only to have the rug pulled out from under them in the 4th quarter with Doc's overt tanking measures was sickening.

Well they did play Al Jeff a fair bit when Perkins went down and that probably got us over the edge in the Garnett trade. Wasn't a huge sample size, some seriously good games like 20/10 games and 15/12.

They had to showcase some bums to give them credibility too. It's a serious juggling act.
Jesus they made Gerald Green look good-or at least hid enough of his flaws to keep other teams dreaming about his 'potential'.