He is just not that good yet or ready to play. If he was better than Zeller right now he would be playing. People just need to get it. The kid isn't ready yet. We have to wait until next year to see what he can do. This year is about winning and Stevens feels playing the best players wins games. Mickey isn't one of our ten best players, so he doesn't play.
You really need to get away from that argument you've closed yourself into.
Whether it be true or not in this case.
Why exactly? It makes complete sense. If Mickey were playing better than Zeller he would be playing because Stevens wants to win games.
Sorry if I believe that Mickey's game should be more than just being able to block a couple shots a night, but I do. Mcikey has to learn to block out better, switch on the outside better without getting lost, play the pick and roll and pick and pop better, box out better, throw the outlet pass better, roll to the basket better, set screens better, pass better, and know his overall role better.
Mickey still needs developmental time and you can't get that on a team fighting for home court advantage in the playoffs. He can shine in the D-League all he wants but the NBDL is not the NBA. The Red Claws are not the Celtics. His defensive mistakes he constantly makes in the D-League can be covered up quick with athleticism in the D-League but not in the big league. NBA players will actually play NBA defense against him and not that horrid brand of defense they play in the NBDL.
When his game exceeds that of Zeller as a total player, he will play because Stevens wants to win.
It's a sound argument and makes logical sense. What's the argument to play him? Zeller is bad? Well, my guess is that Stevens feels that if he gives Mickey regular minutes he will be worse than Zeller. I'll go with what the coach thinks and does and from what I have seen of Mickey thus far.
He is just not ready.
All I'm saying, irrespective of this particular situation, is that you need to step away from that argument because it's the one you ALWAYS use to explain why a player doesn't get on the floor.
The league is littered with players who are ready to contribute but just don't get the playing time. There's a real hierarchy in the NBA that influences this types of decisions as well.
You seem to hold a coach on a pedestal without room for other explanations, as in, maybe he's wrong about what certain player might provide on the game as opposed to another regardless of their development level at that point.
That's my issue with the argument, not necessarily with this case, but with you throwing it around every time a scenario like this comes up.
Sorry, you don't like the argument but it happens to be true for teams trying to win games. I have brought this argument out in defense of Doc and Stevens because both have had that philosophy during times when this team wasn't tanking. You did not see me using this argument prior to 2007-2008 or during the season over the last two years. While coaches can be wrong, I have yet to see Doc or Stevens be wrong on this point. Both have for the most part played young
I think it's a fair criticism.
It's not unheard of for coaches to stubbornly play veterans over talented young players just because of 'status quo'.
How often would Doc keep the vets in the game even when they are playing poorly, or when matchups preferred other guys?
How often do I STILL see Brad play Sully at the end of games after he's made a couple of terrible calls that have almost lost us the game?
As another person mentioned, coaches often go with what they are comfortable with, or what is safe. Better the devil you know - stick with the guy who is flawed, but in a predictable way.
On one hand Zeller has been the ultimate professional this year. He's spent most of the year on the bench, and he hasn't once complained about it - that's not easy for a guy who had such a key role last year. I'm sure Brad Stevens respects that, and I'm sure that is a big reason why he gets the benefit of the doubt over younger guys...and I think that's fair.
I don't necessarily believe that Mickey should take ALL of Zeller's minutes, but I do believe he probably deserves to get a shot at specific times when matchups call for his skills. When we need rim protection to limit penetration, when we need a guy who can defend a quicker big (e.g. Thad Young), etc. Moments like hat I would be giving Mickey the playing time first to see what he can do - give him 4 or 5 minutes and if he stats to mess up take him out and put Zeller in.
In matchups where you need more of an offensive presence, then go with Zeller.
I don't think it's nearly as Black and White as "he's above Mickey in the rotation because he's better". I'm not sure Zeller is a better player than Mickey, but I'm sure locker room politics plays a part either way. You always give the vets respect over rookies, that's just how it is.
As for people saying Micky struggles with defensive rotations and the like - what do you expect with the playing time he's had? Do you guys remember how shockingly terrible Sullinger and Olynyk were defensively in the first half of their rookie years? They were god awful. But with playing time, bother players have become plus defenders.
i don't think Mickey needs a lot of minutes - I think even 5 minutes a game would help him a lot. I wouldn't have a problem with him getting that. If you are worried about losing games, then only play in games where the lead is > 10.
Bradley was barely playing when he took over Ray's starting spot, and then he played so well that Ray never got that spot back. We were in playoff mode at that time, and we got all the way to the ECF with Bradley as out starting SG. You just don't know unless you try.
Topic: Can Mickey please take all Zeller's minutes? (Read 21432 times)