Thon Maker vs Dragan Bender

[droopdog7]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

It's not about not playing the best pLayers, it's about getting young guys some experience and sitting your starters when they are hurting the team.  We're not talking lebron James, James harden, Seth curry etc best players here...we're talking off the bench players for most team that are our starters.  The talent gap I think is reasonable enough that getting your younger players that have shown they can contribute a bit more quality minutes isn't asking too much especially when all your struggling toward is 7th or 8th seed and a first round exit

This response just illustrates a basic lack or people management and coaching knowledge. You play the players that have shown they are the best through watching them in practice, seeing how they understand the systems, making sure they are watching scouting videos and videos of their play to get better, watching them in walk arounds and seeing how that all translates to on court performance. Stevens and Doc before him did all these thingsvand determined certain players were ready or good enough to play. Just because you dont see these things and are not privy to everything the coaches are privy to, doesn't mean the coaches are wrong. They have more info than you and have determined what is the best way to develop the young talent and handing thwm playing time isnt it.

Regarding substitutions when players go bad, you show no understanding of coaching. Yoyoing players when they have a bad quarter, half or game is the worst thing you can do to players. Players perform better long term when they are comfortable knowing their role. Always leaving a player wondering if they are going to be yanked because they did a couple of things wrong or shot poorly will kill the player's confidence and performance. The players in the rotation have to know they are going to be playing a certain role for certain minutes consistently for them to have the best, most consistent performances.

Also, you have to promote chemistry and confidence between the players and doing what you propose will hurt the chemistry and have players calling into question their ability to play with players they dont deem worthy. This will also cause problems between players and coaches and lead to a coach losing the locker room.

Lastly, from a people management perspective, you must have a certain chain of command, so to speak, a certain pecking order that must be maintained to optimize the team dynamic. People want familiarity, they want consistency in decision making, they want to be led by someone they respect who's decisions they dont call into question. What you are suggesting is chaos management. Thats about the worst type of management you can have and untimately causes the product and production of that product to suffer.

Players and coaches want to win. Veterans want to win, they could care less about development of young players. Coaches are paid to win while developing talent the best they can. Stevens and Doc before him have determined players earning time and if they have to play in the D League is the best way to develop them. Since this has happened to two coaches while under Ainge means that Ainge agrees with this philosophy. The track record of this organization in developing youth is excellent. Very few players have gone on to be something more somewhere else, basically meaning they get the best out of their players.

This is all very easy to see if you simply put trust in this organization and coaching staff and stop thinking that because you havent seen the young players play that the organization doesnt know how to develop players or have the wrong opinion of the quality of the players that arent getting playing time. This team shouldnt play young players simply to prove that they cant play to their fan base. Thats moronic.

Amen.

The "coaches" on this board wouldn't last one month in the league with their playe the young guys mantra.  If you keep complaining about the tactics of our coaches (doc and Stevens) doing the same  thing, then maybe you need to understand it's a you problem, not a them problem.

[Beat LA]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

It's not about not playing the best pLayers, it's about getting young guys some experience and sitting your starters when they are hurting the team.  We're not talking lebron James, James harden, Seth curry etc best players here...we're talking off the bench players for most team that are our starters.  The talent gap I think is reasonable enough that getting your younger players that have shown they can contribute a bit more quality minutes isn't asking too much especially when all your struggling toward is 7th or 8th seed and a first round exit

This response just illustrates a basic lack or people management and coaching knowledge. You play the players that have shown they are the best through watching them in practice, seeing how they understand the systems, making sure they are watching scouting videos and videos of their play to get better, watching them in walk arounds and seeing how that all translates to on court performance. Stevens and Doc before him did all these thingsvand determined certain players were ready or good enough to play. Just because you dont see these things and are not privy to everything the coaches are privy to, doesn't mean the coaches are wrong. They have more info than you and have determined what is the best way to develop the young talent and handing thwm playing time isnt it.

Regarding substitutions when players go bad, you show no understanding of coaching. Yoyoing players when they have a bad quarter, half or game is the worst thing you can do to players. Players perform better long term when they are comfortable knowing their role. Always leaving a player wondering if they are going to be yanked because they did a couple of things wrong or shot poorly will kill the player's confidence and performance. The players in the rotation have to know they are going to be playing a certain role for certain minutes consistently for them to have the best, most consistent performances.

Thank you for making my argument; and I'm not advocating just handing guys minutes, but this whole 'earning minutes' argument only seems to apply to rookies, and on a league wide scale.  If Rick Carlisle had all of this information of Jae Crowder, why didn't he play him more, and why did it take him forever to integrate Justin Anderson into his rotation, albeit only after everyone was injured?  Why didn't Mark Jackson play Draymond Green?  Why didn't Khris Middleton get any time?  Why did it take two years for Stan Van Gundy to play JJ Redick?  Answer me this - if the Celtics had drafted Josh Richardson, do you honestly think that he would have seen any court time this year, because the evidence suggests that that would not have been the case, despite the fact that he is relentless, can guard 3 positions due to his quickness, can pass, shoot, even create his own shot, and has a great work ethic, which is all great except that he's a rookie.  Even Miami didn't know what they had until they played him, and neither did Toronto with Powell, who might have been the reason that the Raptors even made it to the second round given his play in game 7 against the Pacers, iirc.  Why do veterans get every opportunity to succeed and young players don't?  Why do more experienced guys who suck at defense, like David Lee, automatically get consistent playing time in Dallas in spite of his defensive ineptitude?  Just because a guy was a higher draft pick or has been in the league longer than so-and-so doesn't mean that they are automatically better by default.  Take the stark difference between Winslow and Richardson in Miami, for example.  If you looked at their numbers, you'd think that Richardson had been the higher pick, which is simply not the case.  Why would you keep playing a guy who can't defend, or even move, in Sullinger, despite the fact that he's routinely killing your defense?  Why isn't Marcus Smart ever reprimanded for his 'decision making' and horrid shot selection?  Just because he plays defense?  That's all you need to do in order to be able to play in the NBA?  Just defend?  Really? 

[Beat LA]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

It's not about not playing the best pLayers, it's about getting young guys some experience and sitting your starters when they are hurting the team.  We're not talking lebron James, James harden, Seth curry etc best players here...we're talking off the bench players for most team that are our starters.  The talent gap I think is reasonable enough that getting your younger players that have shown they can contribute a bit more quality minutes isn't asking too much especially when all your struggling toward is 7th or 8th seed and a first round exit

This response just illustrates a basic lack or people management and coaching knowledge. You play the players that have shown they are the best through watching them in practice, seeing how they understand the systems, making sure they are watching scouting videos and videos of their play to get better, watching them in walk arounds and seeing how that all translates to on court performance. Stevens and Doc before him did all these thingsvand determined certain players were ready or good enough to play. Just because you dont see these things and are not privy to everything the coaches are privy to, doesn't mean the coaches are wrong. They have more info than you and have determined what is the best way to develop the young talent and handing thwm playing time isnt it.

Regarding substitutions when players go bad, you show no understanding of coaching. Yoyoing players when they have a bad quarter, half or game is the worst thing you can do to players. Players perform better long term when they are comfortable knowing their role. Always leaving a player wondering if they are going to be yanked because they did a couple of things wrong or shot poorly will kill the player's confidence and performance. The players in the rotation have to know they are going to be playing a certain role for certain minutes consistently for them to have the best, most consistent performances.

Also, you have to promote chemistry and confidence between the players and doing what you propose will hurt the chemistry and have players calling into question their ability to play with players they dont deem worthy. This will also cause problems between players and coaches and lead to a coach losing the locker room.

Lastly, from a people management perspective, you must have a certain chain of command, so to speak, a certain pecking order that must be maintained to optimize the team dynamic. People want familiarity, they want consistency in decision making, they want to be led by someone they respect who's decisions they dont call into question. What you are suggesting is chaos management. Thats about the worst type of management you can have and untimately causes the product and production of that product to suffer.

Players and coaches want to win. Veterans want to win, they could care less about development of young players. Coaches are paid to win while developing talent the best they can. Stevens and Doc before him have determined players earning time and if they have to play in the D League is the best way to develop them. Since this has happened to two coaches while under Ainge means that Ainge agrees with this philosophy. The track record of this organization in developing youth is excellent. Very few players have gone on to be something more somewhere else, basically meaning they get the best out of their players.

This is all very easy to see if you simply put trust in this organization and coaching staff and stop thinking that because you havent seen the young players play that the organization doesnt know how to develop players or have the wrong opinion of the quality of the players that arent getting playing time. This team shouldnt play young players simply to prove that they cant play to their fan base. Thats moronic.

Amen.

The "coaches" on this board wouldn't last one month in the league with their playe the young guys mantra.  If you keep complaining about the tactics of our coaches (doc and Stevens) doing the same  thing, then maybe you need to understand it's a you problem, not a them problem.

Not all coaches operate that way, though.

[GetLucky]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

I'm just tired of veterans always getting priority over young guys just because they've been in the league longer.  I bet if we had an entire team of rookies that Stevens would send them all down the d league and call up more experienced minor guys from the d league just so that he doesn't have to spend as much time having to actually develop them.  Perhaps if he'd integrated the kids early on, the loss of Bradley might not have been so bad, because at least we would have had 2-3 guys who had gotten enough run during the year to be contributors in the postseason as opposed to looking like deer in the headlights.

I also don't see how any of what I've cited is at all self-serving.  Stevens doesn't always play the best players - he plays the guys with whom he is the most familiar, routinely going to Smart even after he makes a boneheaded play or takes a bad shot, and the same goes for Turner, while he doesn't allow the young guys the leash to make mistakes.  Remember when Bradley fouled at the buzzer in Milwaukee that cost us the game?  That was one of the dumbest non-Marcus Smart things I've ever seen, but Stevens still gave Bradley his minutes in the next game.  Imagine if Rozier, Hunter, or Mickey would have done that - none of them would have gotten another second of playing time for the rest of the year.  I just want consistency.  There were many stretches during the season where guys like Crowder, Jerebko, Bradley, Turner, Sully, and Smart simply weren't getting it done on either end, and yet he never gave any of the young guys the chance to plug the gap, and if he did give them minutes, it was a one game deal.  Who does that?  If a guy has his career high, keep playing him.  Rewarding him for his hard work and letting him know that the coaching staff has faith in him will only make the guy work harder and be more confident, which will ultimately translate to better play, but you have to be willing to give them the time.  What's wrong with any of that?

I respectfully disagree. The Celtics were the youngest team in the league last year. It's not like Stevens is deferring to a 39-year-old KG over a 23-year-old, up-and-coming Avery Bradley. He is giving the established, 25-year-old Avery Bradley preference over 20-year-old James Young. Every member of this past year's team could conceivably be part of the team's long-term future.

The key over the course of an 82-game season is consistency. When the year started, Stevens went 10 or 11 deep. Different people started or went to the bench quite regularly. Everyone on the team, even the bench players, started complaining because they didn't know who was starting or when they should expect their minutes. Once Stevens solidified his rotation, players started accepting personal responsibility and playing "put up or shut up" basketball. The NBA isn't an AAU or high school league where everyone has relatively the same skill-level and short-term highs can be rewarded. It is a league where people have established skills and large bodies of work with clear advantages over and disadvantages under other established players. Unless you are a super-duper prospect, which Rozier and Hunter are not, you have to do more than have a good game two out of every eighty-two to usurp the established players.

[nickagneta]

The fascination with young players who've done nothing in the league is just mind-boggling.

So Stevens is supposed to run players who obviously:

1. Aren't ready

or

2. Haven't shown squat in practice

into games just because they're young?

SMH.

How do you know that they haven't done 'squat in practice'?  Do you watch them practice, because the rest of us don't have that luxury, or do you have an inside source on this matter?  I'm not trying to be a jerk or start a fight, it's just a question.  Besides, how are they supposed to do anything in practice given that teams rarely get practice time during the season in addition to the fact that they're often in Maine?  You can't practice with the team if you're not there.

I'd also like to add that there have been a number of players who never received playing time early on in their careers because their respective coaches didn't think that they were 'ready' , like JJ Redick, Jimmy Butler, Allen Crabbe, Gorgui Dieng, Khris Middleton, Draymond Green, Will Barton, Avery Bradley, Hassan Whiteside, Lance Stephenson, and, as recently as this past season, Josh Richardson, who we should have taken instead of Mickey, imo, and Norman Powell.  The only way to get better is by playing in actual games, consistently.  Take RJ, for example.  He had his best game of the year early on in Atlanta in a blowout, iirc, scoring 12 points on 5-6 shooting, including 2-3 from deep, to go along with 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, and a turnover in 20:53; and as his reward for his career high, he received a whopping 20:24 combined minutes over the next 3 games.  He also had 8 points and an assist in 13:53 against the Spurs in San Antonio, only to not play in the next 4 games.  In fact, he only received consistent minutes in a 4 game stretch in December, where he never exceeded 19:16 in playing time, only to practically never play for the rest of the year.  In that 4 game stretch, he shot 3-5 (2-3 from 3), 3-8 (1-5 from 3), 2-7 (1-5 from 3), and 0-1 (his only shot was a 3), so only one good shooting game, but he did help in other areas in the games in which he struggled, recording 3 blocks, a rebound, an assist, and a steal against Minnesota (the 3-8 games), a rebound, an assist, and 2 steals against Charlotte (the 2-7 game), 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 steals against the Pistons (the 0-1 game).  I just think that that's too small of a sample size to gauge what kind of player a guy is, but whatever , and is absolutely the wrong way to develop players, but, hey, way to show confidence in your youngsters, Brad (sarcasm) .

If you think Brad Stevens doesn't play the best players, then that's one of the most self-serving pieces of nonsense I've ever seen posted on this board.

But don't let me interrupt the fantasy of the youth-obsessors on this board.

It's not about not playing the best pLayers, it's about getting young guys some experience and sitting your starters when they are hurting the team.  We're not talking lebron James, James harden, Seth curry etc best players here...we're talking off the bench players for most team that are our starters.  The talent gap I think is reasonable enough that getting your younger players that have shown they can contribute a bit more quality minutes isn't asking too much especially when all your struggling toward is 7th or 8th seed and a first round exit

This response just illustrates a basic lack or people management and coaching knowledge. You play the players that have shown they are the best through watching them in practice, seeing how they understand the systems, making sure they are watching scouting videos and videos of their play to get better, watching them in walk arounds and seeing how that all translates to on court performance. Stevens and Doc before him did all these thingsvand determined certain players were ready or good enough to play. Just because you dont see these things and are not privy to everything the coaches are privy to, doesn't mean the coaches are wrong. They have more info than you and have determined what is the best way to develop the young talent and handing thwm playing time isnt it.

Regarding substitutions when players go bad, you show no understanding of coaching. Yoyoing players when they have a bad quarter, half or game is the worst thing you can do to players. Players perform better long term when they are comfortable knowing their role. Always leaving a player wondering if they are going to be yanked because they did a couple of things wrong or shot poorly will kill the player's confidence and performance. The players in the rotation have to know they are going to be playing a certain role for certain minutes consistently for them to have the best, most consistent performances.

Thank you for making my argument; and I'm not advocating just handing guys minutes, but this whole 'earning minutes' argument only seems to apply to rookies, and on a league wide scale.  If Rick Carlisle had all of this information of Jae Crowder, why didn't he play him more, and why did it take him forever to integrate Justin Anderson into his rotation, albeit only after everyone was injured?  Why didn't Mark Jackson play Draymond Green?  Why didn't Khris Middleton get any time?  Why did it take two years for Stan Van Gundy to play JJ Redick?  Answer me this - if the Celtics had drafted Josh Richardson, do you honestly think that he would have seen any court time this year, because the evidence suggests that that would not have been the case, despite the fact that he is relentless, can guard 3 positions due to his quickness, can pass, shoot, even create his own shot, and has a great work ethic, which is all great except that he's a rookie.  Even Miami didn't know what they had until they played him, and neither did Toronto with Powell, who might have been the reason that the Raptors even made it to the second round given his play in game 7 against the Pacers, iirc.  Why do veterans get every opportunity to succeed and young players don't?  Why do more experienced guys who suck at defense, like David Lee, automatically get consistent playing time in Dallas in spite of his defensive ineptitude?  Just because a guy was a higher draft pick or has been in the league longer than so-and-so doesn't mean that they are automatically better by default.  Take the stark difference between Winslow and Richardson in Miami, for example.  If you looked at their numbers, you'd think that Richardson had been the higher pick, which is simply not the case.  Why would you keep playing a guy who can't defend, or even move, in Sullinger, despite the fact that he's routinely killing your defense?  Why isn't Marcus Smart ever reprimanded for his 'decision making' and horrid shot selection?  Just because he plays defense?  That's all you need to do in order to be able to play in the NBA?  Just defend?  Really?

The answer is right in front of your face. They properly developed the talent by bringing them on slowly and giving them minutes only when they were ready for it. The development took time and for the most part happened behind the scenes and not right in front of the fan's eyes. How can you not understand that?

Also, you are assuming that the vets playing poorly are playing so poorly that they aren't better than the rookies. The problem is that is a horrid assumption. My guess is that a bad playing vet who continues to get playing time was judged to be better than the rookie if the rookie played well. You are making assumptions that rookies play better than bad playing vets. Why are you doing this when you haven't seen how the young players are playing.

And again reread what I wrote. If you have a rotation player and deemed they have earned their spot, you don't bench him because of a bad game or two. You stick with him and let him work his way through it. That's why across the league players that play poorly keep getting minutes. Because that's how you manage players

[Beat LA]

I respectfully disagree. The Celtics were the youngest team in the league last year. It's not like Stevens is deferring to a 39-year-old KG over a 23-year-old, up-and-coming Avery Bradley. He is giving the established, 25-year-old Avery Bradley preference over 20-year-old James Young. Every member of this past year's team could conceivably be part of the team's long-term future.

The key over the course of an 82-game season is consistency. When the year started, Stevens went 10 or 11 deep. Different people started or went to the bench quite regularly. Everyone on the team, even the bench players, started complaining because they didn't know who was starting or when they should expect their minutes. Once Stevens solidified his rotation, players started accepting personal responsibility and playing "put up or shut up" basketball. The NBA isn't an AAU or high school league where everyone has relatively the same skill-level and short-term highs can be rewarded. It is a league where people have established skills and large bodies of work with clear advantages over and disadvantages under other established players. Unless you are a super-duper prospect, which Rozier and Hunter are not, you have to do more than have a good game two out of every eighty-two to usurp the established players.

That's fine.  I just don't understand the point of drafting players if they're not going to play, you know?  Like, why even bother?  Ugh.  5 NBA minutes are worth more than an entire year in the d-league, in my view, and we had injuries and stretches where guys weren't getting the job done, so if none of your regular options are working, why not try the young guys, and if they do well, why aren't they rewarded for their play with more minutes?  That just p---es me off to no end.  If the goal is to find the combination among 12 guys who are clicking, why should it matter how long they've been in the league?  Just go with who is getting it done, irrespective of experience.  I mean, think about it.  Let's say that you've been giving everything you have in practice and afterwards (extra shooting, etc.), studying film and the like, only to finally get a chance and have your best game as a pro and then you don't get the same chance the next game?  At that point, what's the, well, point, of working hard if you're never going to get an opportunity, no matter how hard you work?  You can't just keep dangling that carrot and expect the guy to keep working hard if you never show any faith in him, and I really wish that Ainge and Stevens would stop telling reporters after the draft that they anticipate the new guys getting playing time.  Do they really think that fans are that dumb?  I don't even know how they can say such things with a straight face, but maybe that's because I'm allergic to bullsh1t . Just tell the truth and say that they're obviously not ready and that they'll be spending the season in Maine.  What a load of crap.

[Ilikesports17]

If your argument for playing rookies uses Draymond Green who played 79 games averaging 13 minutes a game his rookie year as a second round pick, and has been developed as well as anyone could hope, and then calls out Rick Carlisle who is probably the second best coach in the league, then you probably need to reevaluate that argument a bit.

[Beat LA]

The answer is right in front of your face. They properly developed the talent by bringing them on slowly and giving them minutes only when they were ready for it. The development took time and for the most part happened behind the scenes and not right in front of the fan's eyes. How can you not understand that?

Hold on, are we talking about how Carlisle 'properly developed' Crowder, etc?  I understand that a lot happens in practice, etc., but you can only learn so much in that setting, and the only way to get better is by playing in games, and by playing in games I don't mean, "here, kid, go stand in the corner and try not to mess anything up.  Oh, and if you miss your first shot or defensive rotation, you won't get another opportunity this year.  Good luck.  No pressure."  You said it yourself, that's no way to develop guys, so why does it keep happening?  It's like all of these coaches seem to forget that at some point, all of those experienced players, even Hall of Famers, at one time or another, were all INEXPERIENCED ROOKIES who needed a coach to believe in them and give them confidence and encouragement.  It's a two way street - why should the players have faith and confidence in the coach if the coach doesn't show them that same respect?

[Beat LA]

If your argument for playing rookies uses Draymond Green who played 79 games averaging 13 minutes a game his rookie year as a second round pick, and has been developed as well as anyone could hope, and then calls out Rick Carlisle who is probably the second best coach in the league, then you probably need to reevaluate that argument a bit.

How so?  Even Carlisle admitted after Crowder started playing well for us that he should have given him more time.  He made a mistake, just as was the case with Green.  If Draymond never got the chance, this Warriors team might never have come into being at all.  Coaches are hardly infallible.

[nickagneta]

The answer is right in front of your face. They properly developed the talent by bringing them on slowly and giving them minutes only when they were ready for it. The development took time and for the most part happened behind the scenes and not right in front of the fan's eyes. How can you not understand that?

Hold on, are we talking about how Carlisle 'properly developed' Crowder, etc?  I understand that a lot happens in practice, etc., but you can only learn so much in that setting, and the only way to get better is by playing in games, and by playing in games I don't mean, "here, kid, go stand in the corner and try not to mess anything up.  Oh, and if you miss your first shot or defensive rotation, you won't get another opportunity this year.  Good luck.  No pressure."  You said it yourself, that's no way to develop guys, so why does it keep happening?  It's like all of these coaches seem to forget that at some point, all of those experienced players, even Hall of Famers, at one time or another, were all INEXPERIENCED ROOKIES who needed a coach to believe in them and give them confidence and encouragement.  It's a two way street - why should the players have faith and confidence in the coach if the coach doesn't show them that same respect?

You are again making assumptions. Why can't you develop players in practice and then only give them time when they deserve it? Why isn't it smart not to overwhelm a rookie by making them do things in games they are not ready to do? Why not just tell them to go out there and do what they do best and concentrate on that? You give that player to much to handle and not bring him on slowly enough and you will shatter their confidence and kill their development.

This isn't really rocket science. its simple people management. You give people jobs they can handle and do well and then introduce them to more and more to develop their skills further.

[Ilikesports17]

If your argument for playing rookies uses Draymond Green who played 79 games averaging 13 minutes a game his rookie year as a second round pick, and has been developed as well as anyone could hope, and then calls out Rick Carlisle who is probably the second best coach in the league, then you probably need to reevaluate that argument a bit.

How so?  Even Carlisle admitted after Crowder started playing well for us that he should have given him more time.  He made a mistake, just as was the case with Green.  If Draymond never got the chance, this Warriors team might never have come into being at all.  Coaches are hardly infallible.

Draymond Green was a second round pick who was averaging more than 20 minutes a game by his second year.

Are you arguing that Draymond Green was improperly developed?

Also Doc played Sully 20 mpg his rookie year and Stevens played Marcus 27 mpg his. Ive been a critic of Brad a bit for not playing the kids. I was always p---ed when David Lee or Tyler Zeller was picking up garbage time minutes instead of Mickey. I also agree with you that its hard to evaluate guys in practice.

However, I think its important for guys to earn their roles. Avery Bradley ripped the starting role away from Ray Allen when given a chance. When these rookies were given a chance they often looked lost. They all had brief chances and none took advantage of their chances. Im not sure it right to force-feed these rookies minutes when they havent earned them. In practice you earn a chance on the court. Once you get your chance its your job to force the coach to give you minutes.

[Ilikesports17]

I'm sure Brad has made mistakes. I would like to have seen more Mickey and less Zeller. It's a tough debate to have because any player can be used both ways in the argument.

You look at a guy like Brandon Jennimgs. He was a tremendous talent, but he was thrown into a huge role early in his career.

I believe being asked to do more than he was comfortable with pushed his development in a very unstable direction and has led to his being an incredibly imbalanced player, who has really bounced around the league and is yet to find his stride.

Gerald Green is another example of a guy who was given to much free reign to early.

[Beat LA]

If your argument for playing rookies uses Draymond Green who played 79 games averaging 13 minutes a game his rookie year as a second round pick, and has been developed as well as anyone could hope, and then calls out Rick Carlisle who is probably the second best coach in the league, then you probably need to reevaluate that argument a bit.

How so?  Even Carlisle admitted after Crowder started playing well for us that he should have given him more time.  He made a mistake, just as was the case with Green.  If Draymond never got the chance, this Warriors team might never have come into being at all.  Coaches are hardly infallible.

Draymond Green was a second round pick who was averaging more than 20 minutes a game by his second year.

Are you arguing that Draymond Green was improperly developed?

Also Doc played Sully 20 mpg his rookie year and Stevens played Marcus 27 mpg his. Ive been a critic of Brad a bit for not playing the kids. I was always p---ed when David Lee or Tyler Zeller was picking up garbage time minutes instead of Mickey. I also agree with you that its hard to evaluate guys in practice.

However, I think its important for guys to earn their roles. Avery Bradley ripped the starting role away from Ray Allen when given a chance. When these rookies were given a chance they often looked lost. They all had brief chances and none took advantage of their chances. Im not sure it right to force-feed these rookies minutes when they havent earned them. In practice you earn a chance on the court. Once you get your chance its your job to force the coach to give you minutes.

Again, I get the whole earning minutes thing, I really do, but I think we need to clarify something regarding Avery Bradley.  The only reason why he got an opportunity at all was because Ray got hurt.  If Allen doesn't hurt his ankle, iirc, Bradley never sees a minute.  I also don't understand people saying now that people on here were calling for Bradley to be traded or whatever during his rookie year because he sucked.  Really?  I must have missed that, because aside from that last game of the year against the Knicks where he scored 20 points, I had forgotten that he was even on the team, and it wasn't because the guy sucked, it was because he was hurt, which I think is why he slipped in the draft (right?), and thus was getting up to speed in the d-league.  Am I getting this right, so far?

And the key in regards to last year's crop was exactly what you said - brief chances, of which I don't even think Mickey got one, lol, but, again, RJ had a good game and a nice stretch, there, but he isn't going to get any better if you suddenly pull the floor out from under him.  That only serves to undermine a guys' development, imo, and the sample size was way too small.  Again, it's not that I think either Hunter or Mickey will be stars, but RJ's passing, even in the playoffs as soon as he checked in, iirc, gives us an added dimension that Bradley simply doesn't provide, and Hunter's length causes a lot of problems, defensively, too.  Hunter was the only pick with which I agreed, in part because of his passing ability.  I like guys who can contribute across the board even when their shot isn't falling, which he definitely can, imo.  I'm not saying to give the guy 30-40 minutes, as I understand the value of gradually integrating rookies, but Stevens never built on his time.  It would have been fine if he'd gotten, say, 15-18 minutes to start, followed by 20+ or more by the end of the year, but, like his rotations, Stevens' playing time with regards to rookies is really feast or famine, and the results reflected that.  I get that you should start slowly, but if you're not going to do it consistently, then nobody wins.  That's my point.  Is that fair?

[Ilikesports17]

If your argument for playing rookies uses Draymond Green who played 79 games averaging 13 minutes a game his rookie year as a second round pick, and has been developed as well as anyone could hope, and then calls out Rick Carlisle who is probably the second best coach in the league, then you probably need to reevaluate that argument a bit.

How so?  Even Carlisle admitted after Crowder started playing well for us that he should have given him more time.  He made a mistake, just as was the case with Green.  If Draymond never got the chance, this Warriors team might never have come into being at all.  Coaches are hardly infallible.

Draymond Green was a second round pick who was averaging more than 20 minutes a game by his second year.

Are you arguing that Draymond Green was improperly developed?

Also Doc played Sully 20 mpg his rookie year and Stevens played Marcus 27 mpg his. Ive been a critic of Brad a bit for not playing the kids. I was always p---ed when David Lee or Tyler Zeller was picking up garbage time minutes instead of Mickey. I also agree with you that its hard to evaluate guys in practice.

However, I think its important for guys to earn their roles. Avery Bradley ripped the starting role away from Ray Allen when given a chance. When these rookies were given a chance they often looked lost. They all had brief chances and none took advantage of their chances. Im not sure it right to force-feed these rookies minutes when they havent earned them. In practice you earn a chance on the court. Once you get your chance its your job to force the coach to give you minutes.

Again, I get the whole earning minutes thing, I really do, but I think we need to clarify something regarding Avery Bradley.  The only reason why he got an opportunity at all was because Ray got hurt.  If Allen doesn't hurt his ankle, iirc, Bradley never sees a minute.  I also don't understand people saying now that people on here were calling for Bradley to be traded or whatever during his rookie year because he sucked.  Really?  I must have missed that, because aside from that last game of the year against the Knicks where he scored 20 points, I had forgotten that he was even on the team, and it wasn't because the guy sucked, it was because he was hurt, which I think is why he slipped in the draft (right?), and thus was getting up to speed in the d-league.  Am I getting this right, so far?

And the key in regards to last year's crop was exactly what you said - brief chances, of which I don't even think Mickey got one, lol, but, again, RJ had a good game and a nice stretch, there, but he isn't going to get any better if you suddenly pull the floor out from under him.  That only serves to undermine a guys' development, imo, and the sample size was way too small.  Again, it's not that I think either Hunter or Mickey will be stars, but RJ's passing, even in the playoffs as soon as he checked in, iirc, gives us an added dimension that Bradley simply doesn't provide, and Hunter's length causes a lot of problems, defensively, too.  Hunter was the only pick with which I agreed, in part because of his passing ability.  I like guys who can contribute across the board even when their shot isn't falling, which he definitely can, imo.  I'm not saying to give the guy 30-40 minutes, as I understand the value of gradually integrating rookies, but Stevens never built on his time.  It would have been fine if he'd gotten, say, 15-18 minutes to start, followed by 20+ or more by the end of the year, but, like his rotations, Stevens' playing time with regards to rookies is really feast or famine, and the results reflected that.  I get that you should start slowly, but if you're not going to do it consistently, then nobody wins.  That's my point.  Is that fair?

Fair.

I'm going from memory here so could well be wrong but I believe in ABs second year, he had a brief chance early on to get minutes following a rondo injury. He came in and showed off his defense but the rest of his game wasn't ready so when Rondo came back he went back to getting no minutes. A time later Ray gets hurt and AB comes in and forces himself into the rotation.

Marcus Smart was out for weeks and no one was able to force their way into the rotation.

With Terry and RJ and to some extent James. It's really difficult for Brad because they have Isaiah, Marcus, Avery and Jae ahead of them. The only guy whose minutes you could really have cut to develop them would be Turner, but it's not even close between Turner and those guys. He's miles better and has been a great soldier for us.

i do wish Jordan Mickey had played more but Im going to give Brad the benefit of the doubt on that one.

I understand where you are coming from that there needs to be more consistency. I can agree with that, but I also think Brads way is valid too.

Every now and then you are gonna get a 15 minute+ stretch. Go out there and make me give it to you again tomorrow.

[LooseCannon]

Given that more than half of Mickey's minutes came with Zeller on the floor, it's unlikely that Mickey vs Zeller was a thing.  Giving him more minutes would have required taking some from Olynyk and Jerebko.  The main reason that Mickey didn't play much, I believe, is because Jared Sullinger was healthy the entire season.  Mickey would have probably gotten a decent string of double-digit minute games if Sullinger had missed dozen games.

He's under team control for three more seasons.  There wasn't a pressing need to figure out what they have with Mickey because they aren't going to dump him to free up a roster spot.  The Celtics gave him two guaranteed years precisely so they wouldn't have to worry about his developmental timetable.