Doc Is Good So Far

I don’t know who Steve Weineman is but I agree with him. The chemistry on the team is fantastic and I think at the most Doc is a key to that and at the least he stays out of the way of it. He certainly is not screwing it up. Hard to tell whether he has anything to do with the improved D. This year we’ve got KG, older, better, healthier Perk and Rondo playing their roles well and last but not least Thibodeau.
But Doc is genuinely a good family man, unlike Isaiah, Larry Brown etc and the best teams believe they are family. So I’m pulling for Doc. His type should succeed

Well written article. Good style. The job that Doc is doing, and given the makeup of the team, the job that is required of him, is starting to resemble Terry Francona’s leadership of the Red Sox. Funny how different these two guys are from Belichek (especially aftter seeing his coughing, sneezing, and generally cold toned (but insightful) press conference after the Ravens game). Doc IS doing a good job, but his gratitude towards Danny Ainge, who gave Doc a chance for a championship and to redeem his reputation, should be boundless.

Doc, you have three primary substitues: Posey, House, and Big Baby. You have three secondary substitues: Pollard, Tony Allen, and Scalabrine. Leon Powe is there for insurance. Remember this always in your substitution patterns and distribution of minutes and you will do just fine.

halfman/halfoyster—I think you’ve got Doc’s substitutes exactly right.

I also think the team also knows it and is letting BB grow into that role. That is, here’s a case where Doc’s taking his time with a rookie is going to work just fine.

It only follows that since the Celtics were the team of the month, Doc deserves some credit. Poor Doc, he can only screw this up. :)

zomg get good players and they win and are happy all hail the doc!

ray allen: age, 32; off-season ankle surgeries, 2; mpg, 39.4.

Ray Allen’s ankle surgery was in the middle of last season, not during the off season.

Doc is doing well. While it is true that he has taken some deserved heat for what, as fans, might call questionable coaching, you have to note that it has never been a player who has been critical of his coaching. In fact I believe it was Kevin Garnett that said Doc Rivers coaching this team was actually a plus during his consideration of Boston as a possible NBA home.
Furthermore, some of the Celtic’s wins have come despite poor play by the players (horrendous shooting performances by 1 or more of the trio, and Ray Allen, of all people, struggleing to shoot the ball well). If you can still manage to win games despite poor shooting performances and inexperienced play (Rondo) then you should give some of that credit to the coaching staff. Not to mention that Boston is playing exceptional defense which is coaching. While Thibbs plays a large part in that it must also be noted that, as head coach, it all starts with Doc.

While it’s good to see a former Doc-basher employ some objectivity, I don’t think Weinman is self-critical enough in assessing Doc’s so-called past sins. Many of the things that Doc was criticized for were products of the roster. Consider the following criticisms that we heard with no end:

1. Doc can’t establish a set rotation!
Doc consistently replied that this was because the talent level on the team was so flat that no one was distinguishing themselves enough to force the other guys to the bench. This has proven to be a valid explanation given the fact that Doc now employs a set rotation because the talent level is no longer flat.

2. Doc’s teams are horrible defensively!
Once again Doc pointed to the difficulty of a young, inexperienced team to play good defense because of their inability to pick up defensive principles and to execute them in the flow of live action consistently. The Doc-bashers claimed he was scapegoating the youth and making excuses for his own failings. Furthermore, they argue, the improved defense this year is due to Garnett and Tom Thibodeau, and not Doc. Well, obviously Garnett makes a difference. But, I don’t see how that makes Doc’s previous explanation for the teams defensive struggles invalid. If anything it is proof that Doc was right about why the team’s defense sucked. And Tom Thibodeau’s arrival would only prove Doc’s ineptitude if the defensive system was completely different. But it’s not. That high screen-and-roll that everyone said the players should be fighting through? Guess what, they still play flash-and-recover with the big man; the difference is that the big man is Garnett and not Al Jefferson or Kendrick Perkins (whom they have deftly planted on the low block permanently by switching all inside movement off with Garnette planted at the high post). Remember the notorious double-teams that left weak-side shooters wide open, and everyone said that Doc should have these guys playing straight-up? Guess what—they still double everything in the post. The difference is that you have mostly veterans making those rotations now, and the weak side guys are rarely wide open. Doc has praised Thibodeau for his teaching ability and his tenacity in drilling the defense. But the system has not changed one bit! Thus, the claim that Doc is a defensive idiot is also proved false.

3. Doc is awful with offensive X’s and O’s, especially at the end of games!
This criticism seems to be part correct to me and part wrong. On the one hand, it is incorrect given the fact that the Celtics have never been bottom-dwellers in terms of scoring since Doc has been here, despite their obvious lack of experienced talent after Pierce, until the recent emergence of Al Jefferson. Furthermore, the Celtics consistently scored near the top of the league in points scored after calling a time-out. This shows some X’s and O’s ability on Doc’s part. On the other hand, I have never liked the fact that Doc uses the same high-post offense regardless of personnel. When Raef was here it made some sense because of his outside shooting ability. But, non of our big men were good enough passers to make that system work well; meanwhile it took away the strength of our point guards (Telfair and Rondo) which was quickness off the dribble. However, this year I think it turns out to be a plus because of Garnett’s superior passing ability. Certainly Rondo still suffers, but the overall offense does not. So, what was a negative has become a plus. And as for the end of games, I have never liked the clear-outs for Paul with no movement at all away from the ball. But, that’s a critique Doc shares with the rest of the league, with the exception of Phoenix, Golden State, and San Antonio.

Those were the repeated gripes over the last few years. And fro my point of view, the recent roster changes have shown that the reasons Doc gave for them were correct. Are there still some things that I don’t like about Doc? Sure. Sometimes he should call timeouts when he doesn’t. Sometimes he calls them when I don’t think he should. He has too quick a hook when certain players make mistakes. And I’m sure there are a few others. But, these things don’t make him a horrible coach the way some people have made him out to be. The big issues had reasons, good ones. And on the flip side, Doc is great at the most important thing a coach in the NBA has to do – keeping the team unified, engaged, committed, and controversy-free. Doc was great at it in years past with young players (think what Telfair’s issues might have blown up into if he were on the Knicks for instance; think about how the Tony Allen trial was handled = non issues) and he seems to be great at it now with veterans. Weinman goes only halfway in his appraisal of Doc. Not only is he doing a good job this year, but the changes now shed light on what the management and ownership knew all along – he was doing a good job the last three years as well.

Fact is, most people, including those who are very, very good at their jobs, are stronger than some areas than others. Danny has stuck by Doc saying that what we can’t always see is some of the important stuff that he thinks Doc is exceptional at. And he does seem to have gone from shepherding an ultra-young team along to leading an ultra-veteran team without losing the commitment or support of his players.

To do that over several years without losing a team—e.g., Pierce, Perk and those who’ve been here longest—does say a lot for a coach in the NBA. I still can’t bear to listen to his press conferences when his team loses, as some young player is certain to be a target, and he scares me whenever he decides to describe his clever thinking with a particular play call, but I’ve gotta give Danny his props for having selected and stuck by a coach who seems to be making the transition to a championship-contending team, well, well enough.

how you feel abt doc is doc is a good litmus test as to whether you know anything abt basketball. liking doc and thinking that minutes dont matter is like flunking kindergarten.

This has proven to be a valid explanation given the fact that Doc now employs a set rotation because the talent level is no longer flat.

uh what set rotation? besides playing pga all time i havent seen much. every game ive watched theres been new and exciting combos of guys out there.

I don’t mean to “toot my own horn” but I said the day before the season started that the Cs were going nowhere unless they committed to defense. For me, three things stand out. Garnett has given up points for becoming a monster on the boards and a defensive stopper. Rondo is all over the place on the defensive boards and I love his ability to get back on defense especially in the middle of the court. Finally, we have Pat Riley to thank for Posey’s ability to take the charge and man up on the defensive end. So far, these guys seem very committed. As I mentioned the other day, I just don’t see AlJeff getting to this level defensively.

and besides the talent level is flat argument doesnt bother to refute the main point of the criticism – ie any group of players will do better when they know their roles. not a good enough coach to figure out who’s best – flip a coin! your team will win more! yay!

Pretty good comments, migit. Preaching mostly to the converted today though. The Doc haters are blogging elsewhere

migit, I’d give you two Tommy Points for that post if I could. Very well thought out and reasoned.

A few responses:

1. Minutes do matter. However, the criticism of Doc’s overuse of PGA is overstated. Garnett is currently playing 3 minutes LESS per game than his 39min/game average over the last 8 seasons of his career. Paul is right at his career average. Allen is playing the most at 39min/game, which is his average for the last 5 seasons in Seattle. Despite the perception, Doc is not killing these guys. And their minutes have gone down steadily as Doc has developed more confidence in the bench.

2. While it is true that players performs better when they know their role, the key to being a role player is that you have that one thing that yu do better than other people, and that you can do it reliably against different opponents. That is precisely the kind of players we did not have then and that we do have now. You don’t arbitrarily assign a guy a role just so that he can have a role. Roles have to match skill and consistency of performance. Furthermore, a team full of young players is trying to establish value for their players until some of them emerge. You can’t establish value if you aren’t playing them.

3. As for the rotation being employed now, listen to the Celtics Live podcap with Eric Weiss a few games back where he described Doc’s rotation at length (maybe one of the hosts remember which one this was?). According to Eric, it’s been fairly consistent, with some variation depending on matchups and score.

how you feel abt doc is doc is a good litmus test as to whether you know anything abt basketball. liking doc and thinking that minutes dont matter is like flunking kindergarten.

See, now that’s just rude and disrespectful to people. Let’s say I was willing to admit that I don’t really know much about basketball, I think that it’s safe to say that Danny Ainge knows way more about basketball than all of combined here. I would say in terms of litmus test, Danny’s opinion is about as good as we’d find. He seems to like Doc just fine, does that mean he flunked Kindegarten?

A Good Coach,,,, needs players to produce….it’s a fact…. you can’t coach a bunch of players that don’t have talent and expect them to produce…

Coaching is about 20, the other 80 percent is the caliber of players you have around you.

A coach nowadays needs to be everything…. the way Red was with his players in the 50’s & 60’s…

I don’t know how Red was able to do it, he certainly was way ahead of his time…

Doc is a perfect fit for this team, forget the X’s and O’s, his assistants handle all that…. A coach needst to be able to look at his talent along with it’s personalities and be able to put it together.

The players are the ones who have a feel for the game while on the court.

Players league. Doc will do just fine this year.

Master Po, many bloggers on this site were quite open about ‘disliking Doc VERY MUCH’ last year and during the hazy,lazy days of summer. Not incorrect to remember them as Doc haters. Don’t remember where you fell. I know you fit that category re. Scal. Even he has played better although those of us who liked his game are glad to see Big Baby grab some of those minutes

Great stuff, Migit!

I was a ‘’Doc hater’’ last year, and I think my assessment was off. I’m glad to be wrong.

Hmmmm…it’s thoughful, even-keeled, and stresses patience…There is absolutely no way this style succeeds in modern media especially in Boston.

migit – plz use less words.

these guy are all 30 their minutes @ 25 are irrelevant. but yeah they were probably playing too many then too. look how san antionio does. by anyone’s measure they’re the gold standard, they always peak the right time and they play their big three in the low 30s for most of the season.

yr rant on roles is a complete tautology.

no im not going to listen to the podcast sorry. if you have a point to make go right ahead. eric weiss is possibly the most credulous sport writer in boston – which is saying a lot.

and for everyone: boston has the third highest turnover ratio in the association. 15.3% of their possessions end in a turnover. if there has been a hallmark of doc coached teams over the years it’s been turnovers.

anyway yeah we’re all psyched the c’s are playing great. but they could be better, like actual championship contenders. fire doc.

NBAspacewhatever,

1. Sorry if I use too many words for you. But, I haven’t yet mastered the art of writing with acronyms like some 12 year old girl sending a text message.

2. 30 is not 35. I think the panic about these guys’ age is a little premature.

3. I don’t care to debate the merits of Eric’s writing. I do think he is a close observer of the games and pays closer attention to things like rotation patterns than the average poster, and I respect his opinion.

4. When the Celtics boast a bench as deep as San Antonio then we can start comparing minutes and rotation patterns with them. We’re not there yet.

san antiono’s bench in neither deep nor talented. but everyone knows their role and plays it to perfection. and of course the spurs win so everyone thinks theyre great. it’s exactly this sort of lazy reverse engineering that’s leading people to believe doc’s a good coach. and exactly the same phenomenon actually propels each team’s success – three great players. of course s.a. also has a legit coach.

1. Sorry if I use too many words for you. But, I haven’t yet mastered the art of writing with acronyms like some 12 year old girl sending a text message.
lolomg plz