Use the the better bench players

I've been feeling this repressed frustration for weeks now as I see Doc using all the wrong bench players...and the wrong center.
Some people agree with me, and many disagree, but I had to get on a forum and let these thoughts fly:
The truth is that we have a good team, and we have a good team NOW.
1. Stiemsma is an amazing gift from the gods, and he needs to get as much game time experience as possible so that he's ready for the playoffs. I like O'Neal as a person, but he's not a good defensive presence or a good rebounder anymore. We need a big man in the middle for defense, and Stiemsma's the best we have.
2. Etwaun and Johnson are fantastic players, and they should be the second string.
3. Wilcox, Dooling, Daniels. These guys should be our last resorts. Again, nothing against them as people, but they don't bring anything to the court. Dooling has a good shot, so use him as a backup SG (like a Craig Hodges type player). But PG??? I'd rather see Etwaun and/or Bradley back up Rondo. They've got way more ball control than Dooling.
4. Rondo responds well to energy, youth and spirit. He's an amazing playmaker, but needs some energy out there, and some quick feet and hands. My overall issue is that Doc (who I like a lot) is consistently playing the wrong bench guys. All he needs to do is play the two rooks and Stiemz, and we'll have a solid team, and we'll grow in ways we never knew possible.
5. Ainge lacks respect for 'spirit' and team cohesiveness. This is apparent for the A. Walker trade and the Perk/Robinson trade.

Sorry for my way too long post. I felt a need to get these thoughts out there. I'll keep my posts brief and focused from now on.

J

Josh

First welcome

Second you post is fine as for length.

As for your #5 issue. I had no problem with the Walker deal, Perk yes. But both are old news now, and we have what we have.

Sam mentioned in a (not so brief) post on another thread how the big three depend so much on timing and rhythm. My concern is that the timing will never be there consistently given our core age. PP if indeed he is still hobbled by the heel, is just not shooting or defending well. One doesn't bounce back at 35 as they did at 25. KG RA??? You just can't turn back the clock hands, they are warriors in every respect but they are old by NBA standards. When your counting so much on 3 players whom combined age is over 100 it is going to be tough.

So you concern about playing the youth is shared by me.

Do we really have a good team? 4-7 right now and look at who we have beaten. If the playoffs started today.... we are out!

To be completely honest I think finishing above .500 might be difficult in this season of multiple back to backs. Will that be good enough to make the playoffs?

11 games in 17% of the season is gone. And it doesn't get any easier.
Disappointed but never discouraged!! From the snowy and COLD (-28) Tug.

Again welcome

beat

beat

beat
Mediocrity doesn't go very far in the NBA. In the 62 year history of the NBA, the lowest winning percent ever was .537 and only 6 teams won with a figure of under .600.
Swish

Thanks for the welcoming.

I posted a reply in response to what you were saying beat, but I pressed 'quick reply', and now I don't see it on the thread. Did it reach you?

Josh

Josh

No I don't see it but join the club in accidental deleted posts.

Bummer when you have a lot typed and type like I do!

beat

swish wrote:beat
Mediocrity doesn't go very far in the NBA. In the 62 year history of the NBA, the lowest winning percent ever was .537 and only 6 teams won with a figure of under .600.
Swish

swish

I'll still take the moves that got us #17.

Unfortunately that is history.

This team and the management has work to do short and long term but with limited $$$$ and players available no easy answers are to be had.

beat

beat

Made possiblble to a great extent by tradeable young players, a high draft pick and a expiring contract. I look forward to the same process starting again this year with the added luxury of considerable CAP space.
Here's to the future!
Swish

Hi Josh. Welcome to the board. With the Celtics poor start, I think things are somewhat subdued around here, so it's good to have a new voice. Just like the Celtics, we could use some energy off the bench, so to speak.

If you're worried that your post was too long, you haven't read many of my posts

I think you make a good point regarding Stiemsma and Jermaine O'Neal (JON in my shorthand). I haven't seen much of the Celtics' games so far, so I can't say with any authority how JON is playing, but his stats are underwhelming, to be sure, while Stiemsma led the league in blocked shots at one point when he was getting some playing time.

I respect Doc as a coach and trust that he knows what he's doing. He sees what's going on in practice, while we don't. But what we do know for sure is that the guys out there now aren't getting the job done.

It's tough. Doc has a championship in his pocket and a couple of other good playoff runs due to his veteran core, so there's a built-up trust there that I think plays a factor. But at some point, he has to do something to turn things around.

In the end, I don't think this team will go anywhere without better play from the veterans, particularly KG and Pierce. The team's success depends on them, and they have to be able to play with far more consistency instead of the short bursts we've seen so far. Pierce in particular has looked old, heavy, and slow with no lift, relying on his bag of tricks instead of his skills. Maybe we don't know the full story of his heel issue, but if you step out on the court, you need to be expected to play well.

Can they hang on and make the playoffs while the veterans find their way? There's a long way to go, but putting themselves in an early hole has been a big problem in games, and it's not a good way to approach a season, either. They have to do something, and soon.

While the ultimate success of team depends on the veterans, I do think that energy from their young players is a key part of their turnaround. When I saw this stretch of five games that started with the first Pacers game and goes through Monday's game against Oklahoma City, I have to say that I considered the chance they might go 0-5 considering their current level of play. But I also look at the stretch after that as their opportunity to get well:

1/18 Raptors
1/20 Suns
1/22 Wizards
1/23 Magic
1/26 Magic
1/27 Pacers
1/29 Cavs
1/31 Cavs
2/1 Raptors

I see that stretch as a pivotal point in the season. They need to go something like 7-2, and while the wins are important, what really counts is coming out of that stretch playing well so that they start winning games against winning teams in the games that follow. We shall see.

Outside

Ah man, I had written bunch. What I said was that I agree that age is a factor with the Big 3, but I don't think it's as much of a factor as most people are making it out to be.

It's really important and relevant to remember that the C's were the best in the league before the Perk/Robinson trade. It's been less than a year from then. I don't think the Big 3 aged that much in 9 months. Unless you think the Big 4 instantaneously lost their touch after the trade for no reason at all, then you've gotta admit the C's lost their team spirit right at that point in time. Also, it's a different position for Garnett psychologically when he knows he's the only big man temporarily, knowing Perk will be back by his side soon enough. Now he's got the weight of being the only big presence for the entire season, plus the media's saying he's got to take the lead with scoring too. That's not the role he came to Boston for.

So 9 months ago we were the best team in the league. Then Ainge messed things up, and didn't learn from his mistakes in the offseason, still leaving us without a decent big man on D. So what do we do? We should gain back what we lost, which is a big man and our team spirit, i.e. Stiemsma, E'twaun, and Johnson. These guys can be the heart and energy of the team, and they can be that now, if we get them in the game. Stiemz should be starting. Last night he did his job and did it well. He got two b.s. fouls called on him in a row, and then Doc never put him back in the game. Even Tommy H. acknowledged they were b.s. calls. Stiemz is Tommy's new 'Walta'

If we can get a little bit of cohesiveness going, and an energy boost, then I bet the Big 4 will respond in kind with on the mark shooting. Pierce and Garnett can still play. I guarantee it. But if the rest of the team feels empty to them, they're going to feel all of the weight on their shoulders individually and things become very disjointed, no team rhythm.

Outsider, what you said about the trust between Doc and the vet core is absolutely true. And that might be the biggest challenge to getting him to sit Dooling and J.O. for the sake of giving the young guys a shot.

Josh,

Welcome to the board. I really think you will enjoy it here. If you like, tell us a bit about yourself. If not, that is ok as well.

Pete

Josh,

Welcome! We're glad you found us.

Don't worry about the length of what you post, we generally consider anything between 1 and 100,000 words appropriate.

You might enjoy checking out our Game On! forum, which you can access from the main menu. Board members can join in on that forum during games and discuss what's going on as it happens. If you don't have the game available on TV where you are we also have a forum with several suggestions for online feeds where the game might be shown.

Stop in often and let us know what you think!

Regards

Welcome to the board, Josh. My philosophy is that one should focus on expressing his/her opinion well and completely, regardless of the time and space required. Each of us has a unique approach and style to communicating, and one of the beauties of this forum is that we all have the freedom to be ourselves (within the bounds of civility). In addition to striving for conviviality, we're also very proud of the quality of thought found here.

As for how the minutes should be divided, I think we need to keep in mind that the management philosophy for this season was that the team will go as far as the veterans take it. This doesn't mean the young guys should be ignored, and I don't believe that's happening. But right now, Doc's primary focus must necessarily be on getting the veterans in synch. In his search for the most effective playing combinations, he's hard-pressed to get playing time for veterans like Daniels and Wilcox.

Another way of looking at it arrives at the same conclusion. When they get playing time, young players usually develop faster and better if they're placed in a position to succeed (very important to their confidence). The playground of garbage time gives them exercise but teaches then very little, if anything. The best way for them to grow is within the "womb" of veteran experience. To make that experience most valuable, the veterans need to be operating at peak performance (or close to it). This is a second reason to focus on getting the veterans in synch.

My own view of this season is that, if necessary, I should be prepared to pay some dues for the enjoyment of the previous four seasons. To me, the abbreviated 2011-12 season represents a victory lap of sorts for the Three Amigos and Rondo. Anything more (up to and including the long shot of a championship) will be gravy.

I have had the good fortune to see every Celtic of all-time come into the league and go out of the league. As a Celtics fan (and that's dramatically understating reality) for more than 60 years, I've been rewarded vastly beyond my rightful share. I don't know what the future will bring, but I do know what the recent past has meant. The Celtics legacy has re-assumed its relevance, and I'm very grateful for that. It seems only fitting that this season have the fingerprints of the Fab Four all over it. This is my third reason for a focus on getting them in synch. (This reason probably means more to me than to Danny or Doc, but I consider it part of the exalted remuneration I derive from being a Celtic in my heart.)

Go Celtics!

Sam

Josh

Welcome to the board.

Dboss

In the postgame interview after the last game, Doc had this look on his face. It took a while but then it came to me: Deer in the Headlights. Doc looked scared.

Why? This is a good team. It has all the ingredients to make it to the playoffs and probably will. So why does Doc look like he's about to drown (mixing metaphors)?

Back when they all came together for a trip to Italy, we talked about what a tough task it was coaching 3 superstars. Doc did an excellent job. Now the task is even tougher. For example, how do you tell a guy who for years has been accustomed to destroying opponents that he can't do it anymore and will have to pick his spots? No more attacking Doc for me (although i have a long list of complaints).

Prediction: he's going to play them until they get hurt and then we'll see the new guys.

Cool, thanks for the welcomings!

It seems like this forum might be a good fit for me. I'm so used to getting attacked on internet forums, this might be a breath of fresh air.

Just to be clear, I am in full support of giving the Big 4 lots of minutes. They're amazing players. I just think we could supply them with a better center and better substitutes.

So more specifically: I don't want to see J.O. or Wilcox being played before Stiemsma. I know J.O.'s a vet, but he's a substitute for Perk. I don't see him as part of the core. And he's frankly just not very good because of his injuries.

I also don't want to see Dooling or Daniels being played before Moore or Johnson. If someone plays well in garbage time, then give them some real minutes in the real games, just to see how they do. I suspect Doc will be doing this more with Moore...

A lot of these vets off the bench aren't very good at what they do. Bass is an exception to that. He's a great player. Pietrus I don't know well enough... but in general, it's not that Doc is playing the starters too much (except J.O.), it's that in my view he's clearly using the wrong guys from the bench.

Josh

Unless you attend practices, you have no idea how Doc comes to his decisions about who does and who does not play.

Maybe Stiemsma isnt practicing well, missing assignments, forgetting plays etc. Doc isnt sitting him because he doesnt like him, he is sitting him because he believes that the team has a better chance to win with JON or Wilcox - at least against certain teams.

Emotionally we might want to see JJ and Moore and Steamer more...and in time, I think we will. But Doc is not a stupid person.....he knows what he is doing, so I have to defer to him - especially this early in the season.

I can respect trusting Doc's viewpoint. I know he's smart, and I think he's been a fantastic coach since Garnett came.

I'm not insinuating that Doc doesn't like Stiemz, I can only make speculations as to why Doc doesn't play him. And I agree that Doc is doing what he thinks is best for the team. I just happen to disagree that what he's doing is best for the team. To be fair, we've all seen Stiemz and Moore in game time, and they look solid. J.O. had some nice cuts and baskets tonight. I liked it. But Stiemz has a much better defensive presence in the middle. I think teams will be scared to drive in on him, which will cut down their options for how to get the ball in the hole.

My stance is subjective, no doubt, but I wouldn't call it 'emotionally' based. It's pretty much just seeing which players help the team play well when they're in there. I think it's tough to make the argument that Daniels, Wilcox or Dooling has made any kind of impact so far (with the exception of Dooling being able to hit open jumpers). So to me, it just doesn't make sense to keep pushing for something that doesn't work. All Doc's doing is rotating around which of the vet bench players he's using. The rooks have proven enough in game time to merit giving them a real shot. Let's see if they work. What's the worst that could happen? We're 4-8.

On another note, Pietrus looked fantastic tonight. And Pierce was getting things going too. It was great to see. Gotta hand it to Durant and Westbrook though.

Joshsnider wrote:I can respect trusting Doc's viewpoint. I know he's smart, and I think he's been a fantastic coach since Garnett came.

I'm not insinuating that Doc doesn't like Stiemz, I can only make speculations as to why Doc doesn't play him. And I agree that Doc is doing what he thinks is best for the team. I just happen to disagree that what he's doing is best for the team. To be fair, we've all seen Stiemz and Moore in game time, and they look solid. J.O. had some nice cuts and baskets tonight. I liked it. But Stiemz has a much better defensive presence in the middle. I think teams will be scared to drive in on him, which will cut down their options for how to get the ball in the hole.

My stance is subjective, no doubt, but I wouldn't call it 'emotionally' based. It's pretty much just seeing which players help the team play well when they're in there. I think it's tough to make the argument that Daniels, Wilcox or Dooling has made any kind of impact so far (with the exception of Dooling being able to hit open jumpers). So to me, it just doesn't make sense to keep pushing for something that doesn't work. All Doc's doing is rotating around which of the vet bench players he's using. The rooks have proven enough in game time to merit giving them a real shot. Let's see if they work. What's the worst that could happen? We're 4-8.

On another note, Pietrus looked fantastic tonight. And Pierce was getting things going too. It was great to see. Gotta hand it to Durant and Westbrook though.

Josh,

I suspect we've seen the last of any serious minutes for Wilcox and Dooling. Wilcox can't stay healthy and hasn't shown much, looking pretty much like an also-ran to Stiemsma defensively. Neither really look like they can give us the offensive boost we need however. As you point out, Dooling hasn't looked like much either, which helps explain his journeyman career.

Doc has shortened up the rotation, and has had held his traditional dinner meeting way early this year, in order to clarify roles and expectations. He made some comment tonight between quarters about having to do what he obviously has to do after getting yet another version of the "how's age affecting you" question.

Bass got his minutes, a bunch at 5 in a small-ball look, and Moore managed to get in 8+.

Although I always state the obvious, that the coach knows what he's been handed better than us, I've gone to the "play the kids" theme for the first time with this team. It's very early, and I think our core four will get more in synch soon. The bench and it's ability to score is another story. I have a feeling that from what we've seen and comments made by Doc and a few players that you will indeed see the bench rotation continue to evolve and get younger. I hope we continue to see Bass get his, and a lot more of Moore and Pietrus. Given the very limited state of our bigs, it wouldn't surprise me to see Johnson in the mix soon too.

The compressed schedule clearly favors the younger, more athletic teams capable of maintaining an uptempo pace while rotating in fresh bench players. Our current starters are more of a collection of rhythm offense players that get taken off their game by speed; Rondo and to a lesser extent Ray being excepted. Doc will make the needed adjustments to get a little speed and scoring off the bench out of necessity. I don't think we're at the level of talent or depth of Chicago, Miami or OKC, but I think we can give any of them a serious run if our core scorers can get in synch and we add an outside scoring threat and speed in transition off the bench.

I suppose I could have skipped the above, quoted you and said "me too." I just didn't want to hold down my delete key that long!

Regards

To everyone,

So far this season, we've seen a lot more equity in the minutes given to a variety of player combinations. The starters will almost certainly get fewer minutes as a unit. Doc seems to be going more with units involving three starters and a couple of bench guys, particularly when he's going small. More emphasis on variety of combinations means a greater challenges for guys to get used to one another and more time needed for them to do so.

This is a major reason why I believe February will be the earliest point at which we can attempt a realistic assessment of how good or bad this team will be. Maybe March. Possibly even April, in terms of appraising the maximum effectiveness of each combination—especially when the veteran core's performances are so dependent on rhythm, as NYCelt says.

Sam

NyCelt, it's nice when someone shares your opinion. I liked hearing your thoughts, so I'm glad you didn't delete. I totally agree with what you were saying.

On an offhand topic, I recently found out the Celts are originally from NYC. The original team to play in the MSG. Trippy, huh?

I feel as if we could have a really good team on our hands here. Down the run, I think Doc will feel comfortable with maybe even 3 bench players in there at a time. I feel as if we have a deep enough team to be able to give the stars a rest. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but it somewhat hinges on playing Stiemz and the rooks more.

Joshsnider wrote:On an offhand topic, I recently found out the Celts are originally from NYC. The original team to play in the MSG. Trippy, huh?

Josh,

I'm not any sort of resident Celtic historian, but I'm pretty sure that the New York Celtics are not related to the Boston Celtics and that the Boston Celtic franchise started in Boston when Walter Brown wanted to fill empty dates for Boston Garden when the Bruins weren't playing. I'm sure someone who knows for sure will set the record straight.

Outside

Outside wrote:

Joshsnider wrote:On an offhand topic, I recently found out the Celts are originally from NYC. The original team to play in the MSG. Trippy, huh?

Josh,

I'm not any sort of resident Celtic historian, but I'm pretty sure that the New York Celtics are not related to the Boston Celtics and that the Boston Celtic franchise started in Boston when Walter Brown wanted to fill empty dates for Boston Garden when the Bruins weren't playing. I'm sure someone who knows for sure will set the record straight.

Outside

And all this time I had you all thinking I was the original New York Celtic!

Outside, NYCelt and Josh,

The Boston Celtics have always been in Boston. The following paragraph from Wikipedia summarizes the New York Celtics situation:

The Original Celtics were a barnstorming professional basketball team in the 1920s. There is no relation to the modern Boston Celtics. The Original Celtics are often credited with extending the reach of basketball across America and for establishing the importance of aggressive defensive play. As a group, the team was enshrined into the Basketball Hall of Fame in 1959.

Sam