Brad Steven rotations - I am impressed

[VitorSullyandKOFan]

Doc was a good coach he won us a championship by keeping all the egos in check and motivating them all the time he has his flaws like any other coach and he left because he didn't want another rebuilding situation.

[fandrew]

I'm happy to see the C's winning, for sure, and I'm reasonably happy with Stevens' coaching to date, but...seriously guys?  The fawning over what he's done seems a little premature.  Certainly, if it's too soon to come back with a negative evaluation, it's way too soon to come back with an evaluation that anoints him as reminiscent of Red Auerbach. 

As others have pointed out, his fluid lineups are based on both his lack of familiarity with the team and the NBA game (he's still feeling his way, as are his players) AND the fact that there are no outstanding players on this team.  It seems to go without saying that if he had 5 players who were unequivocally better than the rest, he would settle into a regular starting lineup and leave it that way.  If he failed to do that, we'd all kill him for messing with a good thing.  But since there is so little separation between any given starter and the next guy in line, someone is always going to be pleased when his favorite guy gets a shot, feeling it's proof of his binky's superiority over the stiff that was starting ahead of him. 

Please...just please...can we pump the brakes a little on this one?  Based on his prior track record at Butler I'm not ruling out the possibility that Stevens is an exceptional coach.  But the objective data does not yet support that argument.  We expected this would be at best a mediocre team, and that's pretty much what their record says they are right now - on track for 35 wins.  Let's see where they are at the end of the month.  If they're still near .500 at that point, then maybe we've got something.

If he had a legitimate starting five to work with, I am sure that he would. At the same time, from what we have seen, I believe that he would still rotate players in much the way he is now; based on matchups and how well players are doing in specific in-game situations.

But he has an odd grouping of players, really. So at this point he is forced to used the rotations that he has been using to find any way to win/put players in the position to win.

So far he has excelled at putting the players in a position to win games. But that is the most that he can do. He can not win the games for them. The first four games were blown by the players, not the coach. Sure he is still learning, but the learning curve for the players is much steeper because they have to learn to play with each other, within a new system, with a coach that is getting used to the very system that they are getting used to.

With what I have seen I would not be surprised to see this team end up to be a 41 win team for the year.

[D.o.s.]

I wish we had him instead of Doc the last few years but that is just me.   I always hated the give up the boards philosophy.

Stevens plays rooks, Doc would not.   You should play the best players regardless of their tenure.   Stevens has us rebounding and getting back on D.   I am not crazy about our bigs shooting all the threes but other than that it's been fun.

What is, "explaining your own statement," Trebek.

Go back and look at our rookies drafted after the KG trade, because they're really the ones you're talking about. Would you play any of those guys?

[vjcsmoke]

Oh, so whatever he's doing, he's doing it right. Glad we got this out of the way.

By the way, was he doing it right on the 4-game losing streak, or on the 3-game winning streak? Not sure the groupies can tell the difference.

See. I don't know what your problem is.  We've got a brand new coach and a nearly brand new team after the blockbuster trade that sent out PP, KG, and Jet. 

Did you really EXPECT Brad Stevens to be able to establish a fixed starting rotation and know exactly how many minutes people should play from Day 1?

Did you really expect Stevens not to need to tweak things as he goes along?

Did you really expect no growing pains with this new roster, and yes let's admit it lack of talent in the personnel?

Did you expect us to take the division by storm with Rondo out and the players we have now?

Honestly I expected us to have one of the 10 WORST teams in the NBA given the roster and the situation and having a new coach.

Things will get WORSE before they get BETTER.  But beating the Heat in their house is pretty [dang] sweet.

Enjoy the success while it lasts.  Your complaints seem unfounded.  Stevens seems to be getting better and better as a coach.  I don't expect us to make the playoffs but this is an important building year for Stevens to ESTABLISH a system and work up from there.

[Section301]

I'm happy to see the C's winning, for sure, and I'm reasonably happy with Stevens' coaching to date, but...seriously guys?  The fawning over what he's done seems a little premature.  Certainly, if it's too soon to come back with a negative evaluation, it's way too soon to come back with an evaluation that anoints him as reminiscent of Red Auerbach. 

As others have pointed out, his fluid lineups are based on both his lack of familiarity with the team and the NBA game (he's still feeling his way, as are his players) AND the fact that there are no outstanding players on this team.  It seems to go without saying that if he had 5 players who were unequivocally better than the rest, he would settle into a regular starting lineup and leave it that way.  If he failed to do that, we'd all kill him for messing with a good thing.  But since there is so little separation between any given starter and the next guy in line, someone is always going to be pleased when his favorite guy gets a shot, feeling it's proof of his binky's superiority over the stiff that was starting ahead of him. 

Please...just please...can we pump the brakes a little on this one?  Based on his prior track record at Butler I'm not ruling out the possibility that Stevens is an exceptional coach.  But the objective data does not yet support that argument.  We expected this would be at best a mediocre team, and that's pretty much what their record says they are right now - on track for 35 wins.  Let's see where they are at the end of the month.  If they're still near .500 at that point, then maybe we've got something.

If he had a legitimate starting five to work with, I am sure that he would. At the same time, from what we have seen, I believe that he would still rotate players in much the way he is now; based on matchups and how well players are doing in specific in-game situations.

But he has an odd grouping of players, really. So at this point he is forced to used the rotations that he has been using to find any way to win/put players in the position to win.

So far he has excelled at putting the players in a position to win games. But that is the most that he can do. He can not win the games for them. The first four games were blown by the players, not the coach. Sure he is still learning, but the learning curve for the players is much steeper because they have to learn to play with each other, within a new system, with a coach that is getting used to the very system that they are getting used to.

With what I have seen I would not be surprised to see this team end up to be a 41 win team for the year.

Well...he hasn't really excelled at putting the players in a position to win games.  Unless you would argue that playing Bradley at the point gives them the best chance at victory.  I would suggest that playing Bradley at the point in crunch time may have cost them one game, if not two.  If he's so clever, why did it take him all of preseason and 4 full games into the season to figure out something that everyone else figured out a year ago?  I mean, he did have access to tapes of Bradley from last year, didn't he? 

Again, I'm not down on Stevens, just not so high as some of you are. 

I think a quick perusal of CB can turn up quite a few questionable decisions on his part over the first 4 games, and even the 3 that they won.  He's not excelling.  He's learning, and he's getting better, and he'll likely get a lot better before he's done.  But he's a rookie coach with a mediocre (at best) roster who's feeling his way along.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[Section301]

Oh, so whatever he's doing, he's doing it right. Glad we got this out of the way.

By the way, was he doing it right on the 4-game losing streak, or on the 3-game winning streak? Not sure the groupies can tell the difference.

See. I don't know what your problem is.  We've got a brand new coach and a nearly brand new team after the blockbuster trade that sent out PP, KG, and Jet. 

Did you really EXPECT Brad Stevens to be able to establish a fixed starting rotation and know exactly how many minutes people should play from Day 1?

Did you really expect Stevens not to need to tweak things as he goes along?

Did you really expect no growing pains with this new roster, and yes let's admit it lack of talent in the personnel?

Did you expect us to take the division by storm with Rondo out and the players we have now?

Honestly I expected us to have one of the 10 WORST teams in the NBA given the roster and the situation and having a new coach.

Things will get WORSE before they get BETTER.  But beating the Heat in their house is pretty [dang] sweet.

Enjoy the success while it lasts.  Your complaints seem unfounded.  Stevens seems to be getting better and better as a coach.  I don't expect us to make the playoffs but this is an important building year for Stevens to ESTABLISH a system and work up from there.

I don't think anyone is complaining about Stevens' performance so much as they are complaining about how quickly he has been raised to the top of the coaching pantheon after doing....what, exactly? 

Take a look at the initial post.  Stevens is compared favorably to Red, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan and Greg Popovich.  Seriously?  After 7 games we can see this? 
It would be ludicrous to expect great things that early.  Just as it would be ludicrous to compare him to Red that early.  So no, in answer to your questions, I didn't expect very much 7 games in to the season. And I have not been disappointed.

[kozlodoev]

I don't think anyone is complaining about Stevens' performance so much as they are complaining about how quickly he has been raised to the top of the coaching pantheon after doing....what, exactly? 

Take a look at the initial post.  Stevens is compared favorably to Red, Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan and Greg Popovich.  Seriously?  After 7 games we can see this? 
It would be ludicrous to expect great things that early.  Just as it would be ludicrous to compare him to Red that early.  So no, in answer to your questions, I didn't expect very much 7 games in to the season. And I have not been disappointed.

This. Thanks for putting it into words better than I ever could (I tend to let abrasiveness get in the way of getting the point across ).

[mmmmm]

Stevens always looks so stoic and calm.......this has a nice effect on the team executing and not panicking .

He frankly coached one of the most amazing games I ve seen in a long time,  and I go back a long time.

So we ll see if he is really Boy wonder.

The one difference between I can point to between Stevens as a college coach and other NbA college coaches who have failed  is this.......Rick Pitino and others came from schools with all blue chip players, Stevens was winning with pretty much the same thing he has now on the Celtics ,  not the greatest talent , but coaching Butler to levels far above their talent level .....is this what Danny saw?  I think so.....

Amazing stuff to consider.

Yep. Exactly the environment in which Doc doesn't want to coach.

To be fair -- that's exactly the environment almost no veteran, experienced coach wants.

I'm pretty sure George Karl & Phil Jackson weren't knocking on Danny's door, begging for a chance to rebuild the Celtics once PP & KG were gone.

A rebuild is only going to be 'acceptable' to the younger, less established NBA coaches and only 'desirable'  to first-timers looking just to get into the NBA ranks.

Even Stevens, a rookie, may not have taken this job without that 6-year deal.

This is a reality in a sport where coaches get fired for losing no matter whether their coaching had anything to do with the loosing or not.

[aingeforthree]

Brad is doing something I always wondered coaches do not do in Basketball. That is play without a set starting five. Play the players that match up the best with your opponent. Play the players that give your opponents the most problems.

This means you are going to have different rotations depending on the team you play. This means the coach really has to coach.

Doc Rivers was not a coach at all. He just rode his star players - that is why he bailed to the Clippers, and why he would run off to watch his kids play when the Celtics had a game the next day. He will fail woefully with the Clippers.

Doc Rivers had three first ballot Hall of Famers for five years and all he could show was two finals appearances and one chip.

This post is exactly what I've been impressed with so far.  The ability to adjust on the fly, and figure out who can play with who, and who SHOULD be out there considering the opponents lineup.

There never should be a 'set' lineup.  Adjust to the game as it goes, with regards to how you're playing and who the matchups are with the opponent.

That is what Stevens has done best so far.

[D.o.s.]

Stevens always looks so stoic and calm.......this has a nice effect on the team executing and not panicking .

He frankly coached one of the most amazing games I ve seen in a long time,  and I go back a long time.

So we ll see if he is really Boy wonder.

The one difference between I can point to between Stevens as a college coach and other NbA college coaches who have failed  is this.......Rick Pitino and others came from schools with all blue chip players, Stevens was winning with pretty much the same thing he has now on the Celtics ,  not the greatest talent , but coaching Butler to levels far above their talent level .....is this what Danny saw?  I think so.....

Amazing stuff to consider.

Yep. Exactly the environment in which Doc doesn't want to coach.

To be fair -- that's exactly the environment almost no veteran, experienced coach wants.

I'm pretty sure George Karl & Phil Jackson weren't knocking on Danny's door, begging for a chance to rebuild the Celtics once PP & KG were gone.

A rebuild is only going to be 'acceptable' to the younger, less established NBA coaches and only 'desirable'  to first-timers looking just to get into the NBA ranks.

Even Stevens, a rookie, may not have taken this job without that 6-year deal.

This is a reality in a sport where coaches get fired for losing no matter whether their coaching had anything to do with the loosing or not.

I'm pretty sure George Karl went on record saying he wasn't interested in a rebuilding team during the off-season.

Although the fact that he doesn't have a job a season out of winning Coach of the Year is fairly mindboggling.

[Vermont Green]

It is funny to me that people are celebrating that Stevens has not been playing a set starting line-up as if this demonstrates that he is a better coach than all those coaches that play set line-ups.  The thing is the good teams put their best 5 out there and make the other team adjust to them.  If the coach of a good team couldn't settle on a set rotation, he would be criticized for that, not praised.

Stevens is doing fine. The team is playing hard and seems to be buying in.  Doc's teams always played hard too, even those years they were bad.  Doc showed he could coach both a bad team and a champion.

I think Doc was/is a great coach, right up there with the Pops or whoever in the league.  Stevens may well be also.  So far so good for sure but no way that you can conclude he is a better coach than Doc at this point.

[Section301]

Brad is doing something I always wondered coaches do not do in Basketball. That is play without a set starting five. Play the players that match up the best with your opponent. Play the players that give your opponents the most problems.

This means you are going to have different rotations depending on the team you play. This means the coach really has to coach.

Doc Rivers was not a coach at all. He just rode his star players - that is why he bailed to the Clippers, and why he would run off to watch his kids play when the Celtics had a game the next day. He will fail woefully with the Clippers.

Doc Rivers had three first ballot Hall of Famers for five years and all he could show was two finals appearances and one chip.

This post is exactly what I've been impressed with so far.  The ability to adjust on the fly, and figure out who can play with who, and who SHOULD be out there considering the opponents lineup.

There never should be a 'set' lineup.  Adjust to the game as it goes, with regards to how you're playing and who the matchups are with the opponent.

That is what Stevens has done best so far.

But... he didn't adjust on the fly, at least not in the most obvious example.  He sat through four games of horrible Avery Bradley PG play before finally making a switch.

And again, if Stevens had some real talented players to work with, you can be sure he'd go with a set lineup...no matter how well Norris Cole plays, he's not going to be starting ahead of a health DWade any time soon.  By the same token, Pressey will see a lot less of the floor if a healthy Rondo is present.  And I sure as heck couldn't see Indiana deciding "Gee, Miami goes small a lot at the C, maybe we should consider not starting Hibbert..."

Stevens is doing what he can with what he has.  That doesn't make him Red Auerbach. 

[fairweatherfan]

Coaches with less talented rosters need to be able to adjust game-to-game, and within games, a lot.  Their personnel is limited in ability so they need to figure out what combination of skills gives them the best chance against each opponent.

Coaches with high-level rosters with a lot of elite talent generally have less of a need to adjust.  They want to put their best players out there and force the other team to adjust to them.  Sometimes they have to tweak things on the fly, but generally they're very consistent in trying to dictate the game and daring the other team to stop them.

Stevens is doing what he should be doing with a weaker roster, but he absolutely should change philosophy once the talent comes.

[aingeforthree]

Brad is doing something I always wondered coaches do not do in Basketball. That is play without a set starting five. Play the players that match up the best with your opponent. Play the players that give your opponents the most problems.

This means you are going to have different rotations depending on the team you play. This means the coach really has to coach.

Doc Rivers was not a coach at all. He just rode his star players - that is why he bailed to the Clippers, and why he would run off to watch his kids play when the Celtics had a game the next day. He will fail woefully with the Clippers.

Doc Rivers had three first ballot Hall of Famers for five years and all he could show was two finals appearances and one chip.

This post is exactly what I've been impressed with so far.  The ability to adjust on the fly, and figure out who can play with who, and who SHOULD be out there considering the opponents lineup.

There never should be a 'set' lineup.  Adjust to the game as it goes, with regards to how you're playing and who the matchups are with the opponent.

That is what Stevens has done best so far.

But... he didn't adjust on the fly, at least not in the most obvious example.  He sat through four games of horrible Avery Bradley PG play before finally making a switch.

And again, if Stevens had some real talented players to work with, you can be sure he'd go with a set lineup...no matter how well Norris Cole plays, he's not going to be starting ahead of a health DWade any time soon.  By the same token, Pressey will see a lot less of the floor if a healthy Rondo is present.  And I sure as heck couldn't see Indiana deciding "Gee, Miami goes small a lot at the C, maybe we should consider not starting Hibbert..."

Stevens is doing what he can with what he has.  That doesn't make him Red Auerbach.

I didn't call him Auerbach.  I told you what he's done best so far.

& yes, he did adjust on the fly as noted by the 7 games you've only played so far.  I mean you're calling him out after only 4 games ?  Really ?

[kozlodoev]

I mean you're calling him out after only 4 games ?  Really ?

I don't remember any threads running that call for Brad Stevens' head. I do, however, remember multiple postings that declare him the greatest thing since sliced cheese (including threads that discuss him together with Auerbach, Popovich and Jackson, and call him the "greatest upgrade of the offseason").

I find most of these hilarious, and clearly a product of wishful thinking rather than actual fact. Perhaps people who never liked Doc need some sort of validation that we're better off without him. I guess I don't.