Doc's Aversion to Playing Young Players: Fact or Fiction?

A frequent element in many posts on a variety of topics is the assertion that Doc Rivers has an aversion to giving young players more than minimal playing time. It's usually not the subject at hand but more a throwaway expression of an assumed fact.

It would be difficult to argue that Doc feels 100% in disfavor of playing kids. He played a slew of them in the 2006-07 season because kids were what he had most of. And he did a creditable job of developing several of them to the point where they represented valuable trade bait for two veterans who were instrumental in bringing a championship to Boston one year later.

Sure, you may say. Doc didn’t give a fair chance to Gabe Pruitt, J.R. Giddens, Bill Walker, Patrick O’Bryant, Oliver Lafayette, Marcus Landry, and Lester Hudson. I’d ask you which of those guys, with the remotely possible exception of Bill Walker, is destined for a solid NBA career. (Maybe, and it’s a remote “maybe,” Bill Walker.) On the other hand, Doc integrated Tony Allen, Delonte West, Al Jefferson, Glen Davis, Leon Powe, Ryan Gomes, and Kendrick Perkins into the rotation fairly early in their careers, and I believe they’re all rotation players today.

And now we have Greg Stiemsma, who is looking increasingly comfortable and reliably productive in the rotation after having played only four NBA games. What makes Greg different from all of the aforementioned young guys is that, although he played only two years of college ball, he has been playing pro ball since 2008 in Turkey, Korea, and the NBDL. Many may not know that the Celtics are his third NBA team (he was signed by Minnesota and Cleveland but waived by both before playing a game). Consequently, he’s an NBA rookie at age 26.

It seems to me that Doc's playing or non-playing of young players is not primarily a function of any inherent bias held by Doc. It's primarily a function of what's available to him and what represents the most direct, feasible path to a strong showing in the standings. Remember that this is the fifth consecutive season in which the number one priority of the Boston Celtics has been to win a championship, not to reconstruct the team.

Addressing championship aspirations and player development simultaneously is difficult bordering on impossible. It requires committing to development of only those young players who appear to have legitimate potential for being immediately useful. Other young guys who are filling out the roster have to be satisfied with token minutes, mostly during garbage time, as they get on the waived/traded/Europe/wait till next year treadmill. Only rarely does a true major leaguer emerge unless he has become an integral part of a rotation in his rookie season. And I believe Doc has established a pretty good track record of separating the wheat from the chaff in the early going.

This season is different from most in that there was almost no preseason and there will be very few practices, which usually serve as the proving grounds that give Doc clues about the potential of kids. He has two choices: (1) if their potential is sufficiently obvious (Stiemsma, Bradley), throw the kids to the wolves; (2) if their potential is not sufficiently obvious, let them languish on the bench, with only token garbage time minutes and maybe stints in the Development League (Johnson, Moore).

I’m not giving up on Johnson and Moore by appearing to relegate them to also-ran status this season. I like both of them, and I suspect they may both end up in the DL (if not thrown into a deal) so as to be available when the real rebuilding begins next season or if emergencies arise this season. I had thought that Doc felt Moore had passed Bradley on the depth chart. However, I suspect Doc keeps playing the latter rather than the former because the team has had such glaring defensive difficulties and Doc feels Bradley’s defensive contributions can be more incrementally meaningful than Moore’s offensive contributions would be.

Sam

Nice job of defending Doc but as one of those harping on Doc's dividing up of minutes, I"m saying that Doc can't play the old guys the way he has or he's going to wear them out. The only chance for this team to go all the way is if he rests them and holds them back. That's why I say he shouldn't even pay attention to the score, at least for the first three quarters. If the team is down by twenty in the fourth, then let Ray and Paul go out and start throwing long-range bombs. If he holds Ray and Paul back, giving them limited minutes until the fourth quarter, then unleashes them, who knows what will happen? Remember Game 4 in 2008 in L.A.? That was rather exciting for the fans. I love Doc but he needs a new approach.

I just don't buy that it's a choice between "championship aspirations and player development." The old guys won't last, they'll break down, and he'll be forced to give the young guys the minutes because of injuries. That's the way he likes to do it. Maybe it will work this year and maybe it won't. The number one priority is health.

Ricky

so your solution to a successful season is to hold out the veterans until the team is down by 20 points - then throw them in and let they bomb away?

Yeah, I will stick with Doc's plan...thanks.

Spike,

I agree that the number one priority is health, but I'd take the opposite approach to your strategy. My approach would be to play normal rotations, with generous helpings of bench players, through the first 40 minutes of the game. At that point, if they have a deficit of double-digits, or maybe even eight or more, I'm sitting the older guys the rest of the night.

As Bill Russell has said, it takes an incredible amount of energy to come back from a big deficit, and after wiping out the deficit, most teams can't sustain that energy level and fall back again or come up short at the end. By putting a priority on health, I'd avoid having the old guys (and even Rondo to a degree) expend all that energy and save it for the next game, which with this compressed schedule, will be the next night or the night after.

Playing the younger guys at that point isn't primarily about player development -- that's a side benefit -- it's about preserving your core players. And seemingly throwing away any chance at those games -- and they could win some of those games -- isn't compromising championship aspirations, it's enhancing it, because their best shot at winning the title is getting into the playoffs with a healthy roster, even with a lower seed. Working to get a higher seed but being worn out going into the playoffs is a losing proposition for the Celtics.

Outside

Here's why I'm down on Doc and say he doesn't see the big picture: Stiemer didn't even get into the Knicks game. Instead, Doc played KG 38 minutes! There were 2 games in 3 nights coming up and KG wasn't exactly in midseason shape. Doc literally wore him out in the first game of the season. The next two games he looked old.

Doc had seen the Steamer in practice and knew what he could do. He knew he was pushing KG unnecessarily. Why did he do it? Because he doesn't have a plan, or, rather, he has the same tired old plan: win as many games as possible and hope they somehow survive til the playoffs.

I'm not saying play the rookies until they're down by twenty and then send in the big guns. I meant that it doesn't matter what the score is because they have the ability to score a ton of points in a short time while playing suffocating defense, so don't worry about falling behind. Besides, what does it matter if they lose a few games, as long as they make the playoffs healthy? I believe that, like Roger Clemens, I was misinterpretated.

What I'm trying to say is that Doc should experiment. Play a rookie with the big four for a while to bring him along. Since the big four are going to be playing most of the minutes, that shouldn't be so hard to do. I know confidence is important, but they're not going to get confidence by sitting on the bench. The young guys all need games where they play substantial minutes, just as the big four all need games where they're substantial spectators.

The idea isn't even so much to develop the young guys as it is to give the old guys rest.

Many of us have compared this team to the 69 team in terms of age. When checking the age this team is considerably older with our core. Sam at 35, Russ at 34, Howell at 32 with Bryant and Satch both 30 were the seniors on that team. Sam played 70 games at 26 MPG, Howell played 78 games at 32 MPG, Russ found the time along with coaching the team to play in 77 games at 42+ MPG. Many things then were quite different with travel ect. I do remember after we won Russell himself stated he rested his team to be ready for the playoffs, remember they finished 4th in the East that season ( the last team in the east to make the playoffs)

As for the playoffs I was surprised to see who was third in total minutes played in the playoffs.

Hondo led with 850 closely followed by Russ at 829.

Care to guess who was third?

Anyway I'm with Spike on this one, the only chance we have to win it all is to be healthy and as rested as possible heading into the playoffs we need to go deep into the bench every game. In the long run I believe it is the only way we don't break down. We do need another big but not sure whom that could be, JO can simply not be counted on.

By the way the third player in minutes played in the 69 playoffs...

Em Bryant with 607, Howell was 4th with 551 and Sam was 5th with 514

beat

To everyone and no one in particular,

I find it interesting that I started this thread to discuss what I feel is the misconception that Doc has an aversion to playing young guys other than in garbage time. My point was that, if young guys are ready to join the rotation, more often than not, Doc gives them a shot.

The conversation almost immediately shifted to distribution of minutes. I believe that's a different (though related) subject. Segues like that often happen, and there's nothing wrong with it.

With respect to minutes allocation, I believe it should be evaluated on a game-by-game basis. For example, the first game of the season was filled with unknowns. Just a few (of many):

• Doc didn't know what the revamped Knicks would be like and, in fact, he wound up getting his with a buzz saw.

• He didn't have a good advance read on how any of his new players—young or veteran—would perform within the Celtics' system.

• He didn't know what kinds of problems might accompany the loss of the Captain, and I don't believe he was even sure that starting Sasha over Marquis was the right thing to do.

• He couldn't predict how Jermaine O'Neal would fare in game action after having recovered from surgery.

• Even with Pierce out and Sasha in the starting lineup, Doc had Quis, Bass, Wilcox, Dooling as veteran subs and Bradley as a second-year sub who ostensibly knew the Celtics system. But he had no knowledge of how Bradley would perform in the shooting guard's role, how well Dooling would be able to run the Celtics' system, or what the relative strengths of Bass and Wilcox would be within that system.

• He had no idea of the extent to which the system, itself, might have to be tweaked to accommodate the strengths and weakness of this year's squad.

I could actually continue in this litany of unknowns. But the important thing is that, in the face of a plethora of uncertainties, and wanting to get the Celtics off on the right foot, Doc resorted to a rotation that he felt comfortable would give them the best chance to win that game. And he also resorted to a strategy in which, for better or worse, also presented the best odds in that particular contest—going small when in doubt.

In giving KG so many minutes, he also considered the fact that the team had not been fatigued by a game the previous night. He was not blessed with the hindsight that might now lead some to wonder why he didn't play rookie Stiemsma in that game.

I picked the opening game as an example largely because I suspect it's primarily KG's minutes—far more than the minutes of other team members—that are of greatest concern to many Celtics fans. And KG played 37 minutes in that game.

My point is that there are myriad factors that go into decisions relating to minutes allocation. Most of the entreaties I've read concerning this topic don't appear to be considering more than the tiniest proportion of such factors. There seems to be a tendency for them to subscribe to what I've always referred to as a "toy soldier" mentality. Just prop players up and throw them on the floor and they'll all march around in optimal fashion at all times. I wish it were that simple.

Since that first game, KG's minutes have dropped dramatically. Even with those opening 37 minutes in the mix, he's playing an average of just under 30 MPG, and his minutes have usually been in the mid-twenties recently. The current rotation routinely includes Stiemsma and Bradley (who may be emerging into a welcome weapon for disrupting the timing and flow of opposing offenses).

In short, the rotation is gradually rounding into shape. When Doc sees an opportunity for low risk experimentation, such as Wilcox' minutes last night, he seizes the opportunity. The upcoming four-day layoff could well see an acceleration of efficiency throughout the rotation due to the number of "good" practices it will facilitate. Games against the Pacers, Bulls and Mavs will then provide a pretty good test of where this team is in its evolution and what its needs are.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having and sharing opinions on a topic such as minutes allocation. It's a perfect example of what a message board like this one is intended to accommodate. But there's also absolutely nothing wrong with trying to point out that there may be a lot of considerations that are easily glossed over in such deliberations. That's what I've tried to to, for better or worse, and I mean no disrespect to anyone.

Go Celtics!

Sam

Beat,

The 1968-69 team is not a great comparison with the current team because the 1968-69 team had two players for which they almost never had to substitute. Russ and John averaged 47.2 and 46.1 MPG respectively in the playoffs. I believe both of them played virtually the entire game in every contest of the seven-game finals.

That left 146.7 MPG (in a regulation-length game) to be divided among six very good players: Sam, Bailey, Nellie, Siggy, Bryant, and Satch. (That averages out to 24.5 MPG per player.)

I don't know of any two-player combination on the current team that preempts 40% of the team's minutes.

Just another example of why comparisons of different eras are difficult-to-impossible. Everyone knows that the supermen of today are far better athletes than the old guys, including being far better conditioned to withstand a much faster game. Oh, wait.........

Sam

Sam

Only thing is some have compared ages of that team to this one. Once I went back and actually looked there was such a drop off after Hondo and Russ, I really had no idea.

And when I looked at the playoff stats and saw that Em Bryant played the third most minutes I was a bit surprised. Actually aside from Russ and Sam that was a fairly young team. Look how many of those guys were still there when they won again in 74. Hondo, Nellie, Howell, Chaney, ( JoJo was just drafted that year too)

Just too many variables to compare that team to this one. Regadless to win it all this year we'll need to catch some breaks and NOT with our players BONES either. Miami looks to be on a mission but hopefully somehow things will screw up there somehow. Long time to go this season we'll jusst need to see how it plays out for us.

beat

sam wrote:To everyone and no one in particular,

I find it interesting that I started this thread to discuss what I feel is the misconception that Doc has an aversion to playing young guys other than in garbage time. My point was that, if young guys are ready to join the rotation, more often than not, Doc gives them a shot.

The conversation almost immediately shifted to distribution of minutes. I believe that's a different (though related) subject. Segues like that often happen, and there's nothing wrong with it.

Sam,

In my case, I didn't respond directly to your initial post for a couple of reasons.

-- I've never bought into the "Doc doesn't play young guys" thing. I do think he prefers veterans and is more likely to put his trust in them at key times, but what coach doesn't? I generally agree with what you said, but since the topic doesn't particularly pique my interest, I didn't feel the urge to respond with a post saying so.

-- It's too early to tell what Doc's true substitution patterns will be. This season's compressed schedule, with more back-to-backs and fewer days off, means that it's more important to use roster depth to avoid wearing down the core players, but the abbreviated training camp and fewer available practice days also mean it's harder to get new players, especially young ones, up to speed. I'd like to wait until about 15-20 games before really examining Doc's substitution patterns and whether he's incorporating younger players for key minutes and not just garbage time.

Others probably have a different take on the subject, but I thought I'd offer my rationale since you seemed to be curious why your initial post didn't generate the response you expected. I hope this helps.

Now, to take another diverging path that will probably drive you crazy, how did you insert the bullet character into your post? I normally use a double-hyphen like above in my post, but I would prefer a bullet. There is the unordered list feature, which creates an indented bulleted list, but your bulleted paragraphs aren't indented. (The unordered list is one of numerous buttons that are only displayed if you preview a post.) Did you just insert the bullet special character? I tried pressing Alt-0149 (on the numeric keypad), but that redisplayed the thread with my post entry vanished. Did you copy/paste from the Character Map? Or did you use some other HTML or BBCode command?

Outside

Beat,

Agreed on all fronts,

Sam

Outside,

Actually, I'm just as happy that I didn't receive responses to my original post. The absence of disagreement suggests to me that people are now buying into my basic premise. How could I object to that?

As to your bullet question, I have a response that will probably drive you crazy. I use a Mac. When I press Option-8, a bullet appears.

• See, I just did it again!

Sometimes, I think I'm the only person in the world who uses a Mac...especially when I try to download software that is only configured for a pc. Back in 1981, my wife and I (we have worked together since 1979) went around looking for this new-fangled thing called a computer. We took with us a certain accounting function that we needed to be able to, involving listing and totaling expense numbers within job numbers.

We tried store after store. Finally at an Apple store, a young guy named Rockefeller (I don't know whether he was any relation) pulled out this software called Quick File and showed us how to meet our need with an Apple 2E computer. We've been Apple, then Mac users ever since.

To this day, my wife still uses an Apple 2E computer and Quick File to prepare our annual accounting report to send to our accountant each January. We even have an extra Apple 2E out in the garage in case we need parts for the original. Each ribbon in a large supply she in storage for her Imagewriter printer has stuck together and won't unwind when placed in the printer. So she manually unwinds the entire ribbon and manually winds it again so it will work.

I've tried acquainting her with Excel and several of the pre-fab accounting packages. She'll have none of it. Three decades after that initial purchase, only the 2-E, the dot-printer Imagewriter, and a stack of perforated, multi-fold computer paper will do the job to her satisfaction.

She's 14 years younger than I. And they call me old-fashioned!

Sam

Outside, try Alt + 0149

Sam

sam wrote:Outside, try Alt + 0149

Sam

Won't work on a labtop as you have to use the numbers on the number pad which most/all don't have. On a regular keyboard you would be fine.

Of course I have been trying this for about an hour before I googled it and found out I can't do it!

beat

Sam,

Thanks for the info about inserting a bullet. As you probably guessed, I use a Windows PC. But in essence, you answered my question -- you insert a bullet character individually, and you don't use an unordered list or other code to mark a block of text as bullets.

As I mentioned, Alt-0149 on the numeric keypad didn't work for some reason when I was typing a post. I just experimented some more with it, and I don't know if it's an issue with Firefox or all browsers (I got the same thing in Chrome), but it acts like clicking the browser Back button. What does work for me is to either copy it from the Windows Character Map or input a bullet using Alt-0149 in my text editor or any other non-browser application and copy/paste it here.

• Voila!

As for your Apple IIe story, I started on the Windows path at about the same time by purchasing a Kaypro II, which was a portable computer that ran WordStar, the best word processor at the time. (There was no Kaypro I. They used "II" as the product name because of the success of the Apple II.) Unlike your wife, I've upgraded about every three years since.

Beat, many laptops have a workaround for the numeric keypad. I mainly use my desktop PC, but on my Thinkpad, if I press Fn-ScrLk to activate NumLock, I can then use the 7-8-9-0 keys and the block of keys below them to simulate the numeric keypad. Do you have any keys like that with little numbers on them?

Outside

Outside

I never noticed those little blue numbers before. And I only stare at this keypad for 5-6 hours a day.... go figure

now for some experimentation

beat

Alt-0149 works on my computer, just not right away (I guess it has to be brought in from another universe. Like so: •

Another thing that works is for me to cut-and-paste one of your bullets, comme ca: •

bob

.

Outside,

Sorry, i hadn't noticed that you mentioned trying Alt+0149. I just zipped over to Google, found the reference, and parroted it to you.

Sam

Sam,

No problem. You were just being helpful, as always. Thank you.

Outside,

Well, at least it was novel. First time I've ever been an adviser rather than an advisee when it comes to computers.

Sam

Sam or anyone else - can you name any one team in the current NBA where two players make up 40% of the minutes like Russ and Hondo did back in the day? I'd be surprised if there were even one.

Worcester,

I immediately thought of the Miami Heat, where Batbrain and the Boy Blunder play a lot of minutes. But they account for only 27.5% of the team's minutes.

However, to be fair, John and Russ played only 32.6% of the team's minutes during the regular season of 1968-69. (My 40% figure was for the playoffs.) Of course, the combined ages of John and Russ totaled 62, whereas the combined ages of Miami's Tweedledee and Tweedledumb equal 57.

Sam

The point made is that John and Bill were amazing players with incredible stamina, players for the ages. We were lucky to have them. While I', in the process of giving credit where due, Paul Pierce deserves beaucoup [that's French for lots].

W

40% of the teams minutes by 2 players would mean they would have to play every single minute of every game.

Certainly no one does that now nor ever did. But players like Russ and Hondo came as close as anyone probably ever did.

beat

Just checked various stats,

Back in 65-66 season. With in his first year with Philly played 47.3 MPG and teammate Hal Greer played 41.6 MPG. Wilt missed 1 game Greer none.

Not sure just where this ranks, but it has to be up there.

beat