Has Any Young Celtic Ever Really Not Had a Chance?

[mgent]

Tony Allen notoriously left Boston for being out-shadowed by the vets Pierce and Ray.

He averaged 18.3mpg in '08, 19.3mpg in '09, and then 16.5mpg in '10.  Basically Doc's rotations had him coming on the court for 4-5 minutes at a time before getting yanked.

Some of that was injury-related, but he could've blossomed like he did in Memphis if given the confidence of ~25 minutes, as the primary backup to Ray and Paul.

Don't think he would have done worse than Jeff Green.

I don't know if you consider mid twenties young, but he was certainly young relative to the big 3.

[Jon]

I don't think the issue is a coaching issue or a team program issue, be it Doc Rivers' or Brad Stevens' program.  The problem is that most of the rookies are 18 or 19 years old and have only played 30 or so games in college (usually less due to injuries).  That is a huge gap to bridge to go from a very good freshman college player to good enough to contribute to an NBA team while you are developing as a person and a player.

True for Young, but not really for Mickey, Hunter and Rozier.  Problem is we're deep with other still relatively young guys who still need to develop as well.  With Mickey in particular I thought it made sense to get him a lot of game time in Maine, with maybe a mid season callup if he was ready.  Injury set that back a little, but I still think we'll see him start to contribute down the stretch.

Rozier played 73 games at Louisville (27 mpg).  That is way better than 30.  Rozier seems physically and emotionally much more NBA ready than many rookies.

Hunter played 99 games at Georgia Southern and is 22 years old.  I don't think maturity will be his issue.  He simply may not have NBA level athleticism.

My point though is that whether Rozier or Hunter "develop" isn't something that will come down to Brad Stevens.  If they show they can play, be it at practice, in Portland, or in NBA games, they will get a chance to play either here (if there is a place for them) or elsewhere.

The problem though is that some players who are drafted at 18 or 19 may not be physically or emotionally able to show they can play in the NBA for 3 or 4 seasons (in some cases even more) but at that point, may be legit NBA players.  The problem for teams is what to do with those players for those 3 or 4 seasons where in the old days, they would be playing in college.

The NBA really need to get a full minor league system.  That'd actually be much more helpful than college.  In college, players really aren't trained for the rigors of NBA life (in terms of games or in terms of the lifestyle).  And on an game-level, how great would it be if Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey came in this year having played 2-4 years in Brad Stevens style basketball rather than some college brand that doesn't translate to the NBA. 

[PhoSita]

Its hard to play a lot of rookies when you are competing for a playoff seeding, esp when the rookies you have are raw and you are deep. Also I believe this strat worked for Bradley.

Bradley was a very young and raw rookie who spent his sole college season at a program notorious for doing a bad job of integrating young guys.

He got playing time when Doc got desperate for some youth and energy in the rotation.  He was still rough at times, but grew in confidence and competence over time by focusing on what he knew he could do well and expanding his contributions from there.

[Celtics18]

I don't think the issue is a coaching issue or a team program issue, be it Doc Rivers' or Brad Stevens' program.  The problem is that most of the rookies are 18 or 19 years old and have only played 30 or so games in college (usually less due to injuries).  That is a huge gap to bridge to go from a very good freshman college player to good enough to contribute to an NBA team while you are developing as a person and a player.

True for Young, but not really for Mickey, Hunter and Rozier.  Problem is we're deep with other still relatively young guys who still need to develop as well.  With Mickey in particular I thought it made sense to get him a lot of game time in Maine, with maybe a mid season callup if he was ready.  Injury set that back a little, but I still think we'll see him start to contribute down the stretch.

Rozier played 73 games at Louisville (27 mpg).  That is way better than 30.  Rozier seems physically and emotionally much more NBA ready than many rookies.

Hunter played 99 games at Georgia Southern and is 22 years old.  I don't think maturity will be his issue.  He simply may not have NBA level athleticism.

My point though is that whether Rozier or Hunter "develop" isn't something that will come down to Brad Stevens.  If they show they can play, be it at practice, in Portland, or in NBA games, they will get a chance to play either here (if there is a place for them) or elsewhere.

The problem though is that some players who are drafted at 18 or 19 may not be physically or emotionally able to show they can play in the NBA for 3 or 4 seasons (in some cases even more) but at that point, may be legit NBA players.  The problem for teams is what to do with those players for those 3 or 4 seasons where in the old days, they would be playing in college.

The NBA really need to get a full minor league system.  That'd actually be much more helpful than college.  In college, players really aren't trained for the rigors of NBA life (in terms of games or in terms of the lifestyle).  And on an game-level, how great would it be if Rozier, Hunter, and Mickey came in this year having played 2-4 years in Brad Stevens style basketball rather than some college brand that doesn't translate to the NBA.

It's desperately needed.  I'm of the opinion that NBA teams should be about attempting to win games.  They shouldn't be development programs.

Please hurry up and expand the D League to a full thirty teams!!

[nickagneta]

I think this situation should be looked at from a different perspective.

Coaches are paid to win basketball games and develop players as well as an organizational philosophy. If you're a coach of any merit and want to do the right thing for the locker room, especially with your veterans, you have to have a team concept where performance trumps potential. You have to reward the players that are playing their best. If you don't have this and prioritize youth development over performance, you may cause a situation where free agent veterans won't appear welcome on your team.

So assuming this is the case here in Boston because the front office wants it that way, then whoever is playing best in places we the fans don't see where these players are evaluated, are the players that are going to play.

So perhaps the problem has not been with the coach the entire time. If the front office is hiring coaches that stress this philosophy, then how can the blame be with the coaches? If the front office isn't drafting players that are good enough to crack the rotation, how can it be the coaches fault if these players are good enough to earn playing time by outplaying their veteran teammates?

Perhaps the fault is with the front office.  I know for a fact that the fault of these young players playing is at least partially the front offices fault. You aren't going to hit a homerun with every draft pick. Mistakes in drafting will occur. Some players, sometimes the majority of players drafted, just aren't good enough to play. That's not on the coach. That's on the front office for drafting and signing those players.

[PhoSita]

I think if there's any argument to be made, it's that fans have had unrealistic expectations for youngsters over the course of the past decade plus. 

Is it unrealistic to expect that a first round pick will be able to play 10-20 minutes occasionally and do something out there that looks NBA-caliber?


It's tough for Brad Stevens because he's got an issue with having too many guys to give playing time.  The team became better when he tightened the rotation.  At the same time, player development has got to be at least one of the primary goals here, if not the primary goal.  That means the younger guys need to be given a chance sometime.  Even the Spurs do that.

[Celtics18]

I think if there's any argument to be made, it's that fans have had unrealistic expectations for youngsters over the course of the past decade plus. 

Is it unrealistic to expect that a first round pick will be able to play 10-20 minutes occasionally and do something out there that looks NBA-caliber?


It's tough for Brad Stevens because he's got an issue with having too many guys to give playing time.  The team became better when he tightened the rotation.  At the same time, player development has got to be at least one of the primary goals here, if not the primary goal.  That means the younger guys need to be given a chance sometime.  Even the Spurs do that.

The Spurs are in a unique situation.  The fact that they have the veterans they have to go along with the longevity, the culture and the success gives coach Pop the freedom to do things a bit differently.

I'd love to see what RJ Hunter, Jordan Mickey, and Terry Rozier can do, but I trust Brad Stevens to determine when they are ready.  I also trust him and this staff and this culture to do their best to develop them physically and mentally while they await their opportunities.

[PhoSita]

I think if there's any argument to be made, it's that fans have had unrealistic expectations for youngsters over the course of the past decade plus. 

Is it unrealistic to expect that a first round pick will be able to play 10-20 minutes occasionally and do something out there that looks NBA-caliber?


It's tough for Brad Stevens because he's got an issue with having too many guys to give playing time.  The team became better when he tightened the rotation.  At the same time, player development has got to be at least one of the primary goals here, if not the primary goal.  That means the younger guys need to be given a chance sometime.  Even the Spurs do that.

The Spurs are in a unique situation.  The fact that they have the veterans they have to go along with the longevity, the culture and the success gives coach Pop the freedom to do things a bit differently.

I'd love to see what RJ Hunter, Jordan Mickey, and Terry Rozier can do, but I trust Brad Stevens to determine when they are ready.  I also trust him and this staff and this culture to do their best to develop them physically and mentally while they await their opportunities.

I agree that the Spurs have maybe the ideal situation for doing what I'm talking about.  I disagree, however, that the circumstances you mention are required for giving younger players a chance at real playing time now and then.

Once in a while on a back to back, give a few of the guys the night off and let the rookies give it a go off the bench.

That might seem like a questionable decision if every single win were precious in our pursuit of a title, but that's not where the team is at right now.  The regular season is way too long and even younger veterans can benefit from a night off occasionally.   

The Celts might benefit from that in the playoffs.  If they have to turn to one of the younger guys later in the season due to injuries, they'd be much better off if they'd given the younger guys some seasoning.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The problem for me isn't about whether to play rookies or not, but whether they're playing them when logic dictates.

For example, early in the season Stevens played the young guys a lot. We struggles, he made away with that. No problem there considering the depth.

As the season went along, our big man rotation showed flaws and some depth issues as far as players playing at a level that warranted playing time. During those times Mickey could've gotten an opportunity. A problem here though is that depth didn't allow to Mickey to be dressed in the first place.

When injuries hit though, perfect opportunity to test Mickey, no chance was given despite Young & Hunter having a lot of opportunities in the year. So that's the only issue with Stevens.

But since he got here he's given rookies their fair chance, most have failed when called.

To keep it in this cotext, my beef with Doc is mostly with the Giddens/Walker era because logic dictated that at least one of them should've been integrated to the rotation throughout the season. Why? Because we lacked a lot of depth in those positions. So he had to make due with what he had and he didn't use them. The consequence was that we had no other alternatives to defend other SFs in the playoffs, like Lewis, and also he fatigued our main wings.

[Jon]

I think if there's any argument to be made, it's that fans have had unrealistic expectations for youngsters over the course of the past decade plus. 

Is it unrealistic to expect that a first round pick will be able to play 10-20 minutes occasionally and do something out there that looks NBA-caliber?


It's tough for Brad Stevens because he's got an issue with having too many guys to give playing time.  The team became better when he tightened the rotation.  At the same time, player development has got to be at least one of the primary goals here, if not the primary goal.  That means the younger guys need to be given a chance sometime.  Even the Spurs do that.

You're don't completely disagree. But even the vast majority of first round picks are either busts or just simply end up being role players.  I also think most coaches (at least think) that they can tell how well a player is developing and when he'll be ready based on practice. 

It's a tough issue.  The impetus for my OP was really just out of frustration for the decade plus of people bemoaning the lack of PT for youngsters who generally ended up being mediocre to poor NBA players.  Maybe more of critical should be turned to Danny'[s drafting, though I'm not sure how far I'd go down that road since even the best execs strikeout (or maybe hit a single) more times than not in the draft. 

[Vermont Green]

At the same time, player development has got to be at least one of the primary goals here, if not the primary goal.  That means the younger guys need to be given a chance sometime.  Even the Spurs do that.

I don't think you can make this statement without conceding that it will cost a team some amount of wins (since you are saying winning is not the primary goal).  Relative to this team, this season, how many wins are you willing to give up in exchange for your alternate primary goal of developing players?

[Celtics18]

I think if there's any argument to be made, it's that fans have had unrealistic expectations for youngsters over the course of the past decade plus. 

Is it unrealistic to expect that a first round pick will be able to play 10-20 minutes occasionally and do something out there that looks NBA-caliber?


It's tough for Brad Stevens because he's got an issue with having too many guys to give playing time.  The team became better when he tightened the rotation.  At the same time, player development has got to be at least one of the primary goals here, if not the primary goal.  That means the younger guys need to be given a chance sometime.  Even the Spurs do that.

The Spurs are in a unique situation.  The fact that they have the veterans they have to go along with the longevity, the culture and the success gives coach Pop the freedom to do things a bit differently.

I'd love to see what RJ Hunter, Jordan Mickey, and Terry Rozier can do, but I trust Brad Stevens to determine when they are ready.  I also trust him and this staff and this culture to do their best to develop them physically and mentally while they await their opportunities.

I agree that the Spurs have maybe the ideal situation for doing what I'm talking about.  I disagree, however, that the circumstances you mention are required for giving younger players a chance at real playing time now and then.

Once in a while on a back to back, give a few of the guys the night off and let the rookies give it a go off the bench.

That might seem like a questionable decision if every single win were precious in our pursuit of a title, but that's not where the team is at right now.  The regular season is way too long and even younger veterans can benefit from a night off occasionally.   

The Celts might benefit from that in the playoffs.  If they have to turn to one of the younger guys later in the season due to injuries, they'd be much better off if they'd given the younger guys some seasoning.

I think where your opinion differs wildly from that of coach Stevens is that you don't consider "every win precious." 

I happen to think that treating every win as precious is an important part of development.  More important, in my opinion (and presumably Stevens' as well), than giving out minutes that players aren't really ready for.

[Evantime34]

My position has always been that any player drafted will get an opportunity for minutes before their rookie expires unless they are completely inept.

Especially with the C's battling for home court advantage in the first round of the playoffs, I don't think Stevens will play the young guys unless he needs to. However, with Olynyk and potentially Bradley injured, I wouldn't be surprised if one of Young, Hunter or Mickey sees significant time, if they play well during their time I could see them earning time for the rest of the year.

Regardless of what happens this year, the Celtics will need young players to be rotation guys next year. If the C's add 3 rookies to their roster in the draft, then they will have 7 young/unproven players on their roster. At least one of those 7 guys will have to get minutes if Brad keeps with the 9 man rotation he's been using recently.

[LooseCannon]

I think we should have force fed Gerald more minutes.  It's hard, because he was a lazy moron, but on a team going nowhere I would have liked to see more than 11 minutes per game.

If you have a player who is lazy, your most realistic way to create an incentive to be less so is to make playing time contingent on hard work.  I don't like force feeding minutes to young players on a bad team and treating the entire season like a string of glorified scrimmages.

[PhoSita]

I happen to think that treating every win as precious is an important part of development.  More important, in my opinion (and presumably Stevens' as well), than giving out minutes that players aren't really ready for.

Brad Stevens is supposedly all about the process.  Integrating young players and allowing them to learn from making mistakes in minutes that matter is presumably part of the process of building a roster that has the depth and experience to contend for a championship.

Putting young guys out there for 10-20 minutes sometimes doesn't mean you're deciding you don't want to win the game.  It just means you're not going all-out to win every single regular season game.

Obviously this is a calculus Brad -- and many other coaches -- are willing to consider, otherwise we'd see every coach pulling a Thibs and playing their best guys 38-40 minutes a game.