The Inconvenience of Eddie House

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Nov 15, 2009 10:49 PM EST Comment 14 comments

We all know what Eddie House does well--he spreads the floor and shoots lights out when uncovered. But are those 2 things (which are really one thing with two components) worth the compromises we make with the rest of the lineup in order to put him on the floor? Just think, this is what playing Eddie House makes us give up:

Using Rondo as the bridge to the 2nd unit: The no-brainer move designed to keep Ray/Paul from being overplayed, while also keeping our best playmaker on the floor with the 2nd unit that has no point guard--unfortunately, we can't do it because House's presence on the court leaves us too short in the backcourt.
Any semblance of play-making on the 2nd unit: This leads to contested jump shots and makes us perimeter-oriented to the detriment of overall team offensive balance. Of course, House's jack-at-all-cost offensive game itself makes us over-reliant on three pointers, above and beyond what his presence at point does to the offense. Not only do we have an over-abundance of 3 point shooters, we have a bad point guard doing bad point guard things which leads to contested 3s as the clock winds down. It's a feedback loop of perimeter dependence.
Solution to House-at-point takes our best backup 2/3 and moves him to the point: Of course, Daniels is MUCH better at point than House, and Daniels does a good job at point relative to House, but in essence we're weakening our 2/3 position in order to find a way to get House on the court, while at the same time increasing the minutes of Ray/Paul. So, yes, we can substitute around House's deficiencies at point, but it makes Daniels/Ray/Paul de facto facilitators to the detriment of what they do best. Sure, they can play point from time to time, but we've made it the rule all so we can get House on the court.

So, that's what we give up to get House on the floor. Are his floor space-ability and occasional eruptions from deep (when left unguarded) worth the compromises we must make in other areas?

I say NO. I say, we have enough 3 point shooters that we don't need him to space the floor. I say that defense and point guard competence are much more important to the second team than what House brings. We're crippling ourselves in 3 areas all just so we can 'space the floor.' It's retarded.

Solution: I wouldn't bench House outright, but instead curtail his minutes to specific situations. The way we have it now, he's easy to defend. Limit his minutes a bit, and maybe the other team doesn't game plan for him as much and then perhaps we can spring him on other teams unawares. The reason he's had 5 bad games in a row is simple--he's been given defensive attention. And when the other team scouts him and defends him, he'll be stopped almost every time. That's why he never performs well in the post-season.

In order to use Rondo as bridge to 2nd unit, either Hudson, TA, Scal, or Walker have to step up and fill in at 2/3. So, while limiting House's minutes, I'd give extra to that foursome. Also, when Rondo needs a break in the mid-2nd quarter, I'd use Hudson for a 3-4 minute stretch, right about the same time the starters come back in.

The thing with Hudson v. House is simple--Lester Hudson can hit the three, and also defend his position, dribble against pressure, create his own shot, and get to the rim. He could probably even defend some twos, depending on the situation. His youth would give us a nice jolt of energy, something this team could use right now. Best of all, his presence would remove all the inconveniences of playing Eddie House. Of all the possible moves to get this team on track, Hudson to backup point makes the most sense, if only for a few games.

Be respectful and keep it clean. Thanks.

0 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You lost me when you suggested TA, JR, Hudson or Walker

None of them have accomplished anything close to what House has.

He has a roll on this team. He shoots.

Catch, shoot.

He should not be losing minutes to any of the other Gs on the current Celtics bench.

by Wide Load on Nov 15, 2009 11:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Never suggested JR

I’d rather play Rondo with Hudson/TA/Scal/Walker than House with Ray/Paul.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Nov 16, 2009 7:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Some of those combos would kill us...

Let’s say it’s Rondo/TA/Daniels on the court at the same time. That means you have three guys who can’t shoot, all on the court at the same time. How are we going to run an effective offense with that mess on the court?

House has a necessary role in terms of providing spacing. Additionally, he’s been playing better defense in stretches than our starting point guard has been. House has deficiencies, which is why he plays next to Marquis on the court. While it would be better if he was an all-around player who still had House’s positives, those type of guys are generally starters.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Nov 17, 2009 5:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily

Rondo/TA(or Walker)/Daniels would be an effective transition lineup, and if paired with Wallace and Baby, Doc could invert the lineup, playing Daniels/TA (or Walker) in the post and keeping Wallace/Baby weakside to space the court.

Rondo paired with Hudson/Scal should provide enough shooting to keep defenses honest in the half court…

House’s role is not necessary—it’s a luxury, one which we can’t always afford. Hudson, ideally, will replace Eddie next season, if not sooner.

I’m not sure how to respond to the opinion that House is playing better defense than Rondo. That’s ridiculous IMO.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Nov 17, 2009 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What makes you think Tony or Walker are capable of playing in the post?

I’ve never seem either do it on a consistent basis. Also, I think it’s impossible for any team to rely exclusively on transition points, especially when they don’t have good shooters.

As for Rondo next to Hudson and/or Scal… teams need a minimum amount of talent on the floor at one time to win games. We can’t rely on either Hudson or Scal to play a major role in our offense, especially in lieu of Eddie House.

As for House’s defense, Doc sat Rondo down in the fourth quarter recently because House was playing better D. Rondo has more defensive talent, but his focus hasn’t always been where it should be.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Nov 20, 2009 7:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Meh

TA is pretty solid in the post—at least over his career. Doc rarely utilizes that advantage however. Bill Walker is pretty dynamite there as well, but once again Doc has rarely if ever called many plays to get him going there. Just because Doc fails to utilize certain matchups, doesn’t mean those players don’t have those strengths. We all know Doc isn’t very creative when it comes to calling plays.

Transition is something you don’t ‘rely’ on—it’s something you use to control the pace of the game and get easy buckets. A Rondo/TA/Daniels/Baby/‘Sheed lineup could be devestating in transition, and Baby/Wallace could be very effective with secondary break jump shot opportunities. Again, just because Doc neglects opportunities and potential advantages doesn’t mean we necessarily HAVE TO—it just means that Doc is comfortable coaching a certain way…

I think Scal/Hudson could easily hit wide open jumpers—I’ve seen them do it. Hudson is a natural scorer who could do damage in a variety of ways, while Scal has gotten much better staying in his role and not doing too much. He can definitely hit a spot up jumper…

Not sure if I remember Rondo getting sat for the 4th quarter because of defense. From what I remember (and this is the Nets game, I think), Rondo dominated the 3rd quarter of that game, on both sides of the ball (didn’t he have 5 steals that night?), but his teammates were playing in cement, not moving, not cutting, not setting picks. So, in the 4th, Doc puts Paul at the point, ‘spreads’ the floor with Eddie and other shooters, and because it’s the Nets and they’re terrible we end up with the win. Typical short-sighted, secure-the-win-neglect-an-opportunity-to-get-better move by Doc Rivers. We made Pierce point because nobody was moving or cutting—so we station shooters at the perimeter and all Paul had to do was break down his man and either score himself or find an open shooter after the defense caved.

Also, from what I remember, House was getting pretty burnt by Alston in the 4th—except Alston wasn’t converting like he had been earlier in the game. Just because somebody’s missing layups and open jump shots doesn’t equate with ‘good D’.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Nov 20, 2009 8:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree......

you make some valid points.

I also think that Doc has got to start expermenting with different line ups much more.

This team has a lot of versatile players that can play multiple position and Doc can and must tinker with the line up to find ones that click, especially when the team is in a slump.

by fordescort on Nov 16, 2009 12:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Daniels does not play the point...

He plays point forward. That doesn’t stop him from playing the 2/3 position, especially on defense.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Nov 16, 2009 7:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Whatever the semantics are

It doesn’t change the fact that Daniels and Ray/Paul have to take on a greater ballhandling and distribution role when they’re playing with House—something they can do, for sure, but something that takes away from the other things they can do too. We end up playing (and overplaying in the case of Ray/Paul) two people out of position all so we can play House—why not use Rondo as the bridge and keep everyone at their natural positions instead? Are three pointers THAT important? I’d rather we had better defense and a higher functioning offense than a perimeter dependent 2nd unit that needs to lean on Ray/Paul…

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Nov 16, 2009 7:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, three pointers are that important...

Teams would have a field day defending a Rondo/TA/Daniels combo. Spacing is extremely important in today’s game, and if none of your guards / swing men can provide it, you’re in trouble.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

by Roy_Hobbs on Nov 17, 2009 6:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

totally agree with Roy

Eddie is a vital part of the C’s offense. We need that outside shot to pull defenders out of the paint.

I do agree with the OP that Eddie is much more effective playing a ‘pure’ SG and moving without the ball. And I also agree that Doc was probably worried about this same basic issue – coverage at SF when he talked in preseason about having Scal there.

Its perfectly fine and does not hurt the team at all to have Daniels bringing up the ball. Like Pierce, even if playing a ‘pure’ 3, he’s going to (should be) getting the ball in hand near the top of the key and penetrating anyway. Whether that’s a true point like Rondo bringing it up and passing it to him or bringing it up himself shouldn’t matter to our offense. Daniels is an extremely smart player and I am pretty confident with him running the second unit offense.

What this then requires is a switch on defense – which is what they have been doing. Switches do sometimes hurt but that’s rare.

One other thing that will help will be the return of BBD who can play 3 in some rotations, negating the need for the switch when Daniels is at point.

And don’t count out Hudson as a pure PG option off the bench – he’s getting better each game he gets minutes.

by mmmmm on Nov 17, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Hudson, but

House’s inability to penetrate and finish, and to penetrate and dish, really hurts the 2nd unit’s effectiveness against good teams. They know that if they keep tight pressure on House, he likely won’t hurt them if he gets around his man, and may even turn the ball over with his poor passing, so they play him close to stop the jumpshot. Thus whatever play the team is running breaks down once the ball hits House’s hands if he is not open for a shot. But Hudson is unlikely to displace House this year unless there is an injury or a long losing streak (unlikely) or a trade. With trades, Ainge and Doc tend to showcase the players they want to trade (Blount, Davis), then use the young player after the trade. If House has any trade value , they won’t bench House, at least until after the trade deadline, to avoid undercutting his stature. The dream trade for me is for a good wing with length who could finish the games with Pierce, then replace Ray in the lineup next year. Now that Jackson has been traded, we’ll have to wait for the trade deadline to see what a House/Williams or House/Davis package could bring in return.

by samjones on Nov 16, 2009 11:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think we could keep Rondo on with the second unit. Sheed spreads the floor, and makes up for Rondo’s outside shooting. If Rondo’s man plays off him, Rondo can attack the basket, because Sheed’s man will have to stay near the perimeter to contest threes. This would allow Rondo to make inside baskets.

As the starters begin to phase back in, you can put House into the lineup with either Ray or PP, and then a combo of KG / Perk / Sheed up front.

This would allow for House to be on the floor with playmakers, and could spread the floor.

by 18isGREATERthan72 on Nov 18, 2009 4:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

C's 20-4, Doc > You

Doc knows what he’s doing. He may not be the best coach ever, but he knows how to run this team. He knows better than anybody the strengths and limitations of his players. I’m gonna trust whatever lineup he puts in, especially when it includes a player who has performed in the past (house) over others who haven’t really done much yet (walker, hudson, ta).

In Doc We Trust.

by hotdogsam on Dec 15, 2009 7:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs