Celtics hire Ime Udoka as HC

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Ime Udoka may or may not be a good NBA coach. The team's results leave him open to criticism however the problem is that some of the critics are ill qualified to analyze the decision making and lack important context (what is going on with each of the players physically, emotionally etc.) to make a good faith assessment. Yet the certitude that its correct seems really high.

Its not beyond the pale that we actually have a coaching savant (sevornt!! /Ruth) in our midst but the problem is, our collective output doesn't indicate it.

We don't even acknowledge the vast information disadvantages fans have versus the coaching staff and front office. Its not just cuts of data that show tendencies etc. What if one of the starters is in their feelings because they had a fight with a partner or two guys aren't working well together in practice?

Udoka might adjust for reasons like this but those very real, human situations aren't even considered. People simply know better despite not having any information and that is why some of these criticisms are difficult to take seriously.

 

[Jimbodandy]

In the 80s we didn't know the benfits of correctly managing minutes, also... Larry's body broke into little pieces because of heavy workloads. Also, every guy in the league is 10x the athlete, the impact on the body of the modern game is high because everyone is in great shape, they're running harder, jumping higher and having more significant impacts.

Also.. rhythm? Really? We think that Tatum's missed 3s were because he hadn't taken enough in the last 6 months?

Good coaches manage minutes to keep guys fresh, they use rotations like other modern era teams to give their team the ability to play their best in every one of their minutes.

Bird and McHale aren't the guys to trot out to support the old man position. Bird played a total of 13 years but was really a shell of himself after year 9. Some of that was being a 23yo rookie, and some was his goofy lifestyle, chugging beer and tarring his own driveways and shit. McHale similarly tailed off after year 10 of 13, although not quite as dramatically.

We definitely did not know about the benefits of recuperation, compared to today. People didn't take nutrition and strength training as seriously either.

Minimizing guys minutes when games are over is a good thing.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Bird and McHale aren't the guys to trot out to support the old man position. Bird played a total of 13 years but was really a shell of himself after year 9. Some of that was being a 23yo rookie, and some was his goofy lifestyle, chugging beer and tarring his own driveways and shit. McHale similarly tailed off after year 10 of 13, although not quite as dramatically.

We definitely did not know about the benefits of recuperation, compared to today. People didn't take nutrition and strength training as seriously either.

Minimizing guys minutes when games are over is a good thing.

Sure I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. I’d disagree with the game being over when Tatum returned to the game up 23 w/7 to play before he was pulled just 3 min later once the game was safely in the bag up 25 w/4 to go. I said this earlier but people needs to adjust their thinking to how quickly a lead can dissipate in todays game compared to 20-30 years ago. Growing up any 2H 20-pt lead was garbage time……today you are a quick 60-75 sec run from it being a single digit game. There was another game tonight where the Heat also had a 23 pt lead w about 8 min to play and with over a min to go it was a two possession game. These aren’t our parents 20-point leads.

 

[128]

I said this earlier but people needs to adjust their thinking to how quickly a lead can dissipate in todays game compared to 20-30 years ago. Growing up any 2H 20-pt lead was garbage time……today you are a quick 60-75 sec run from it being a single digit game. There was another game tonight where the Heat also had a 23 pt lead w about 8 min to play and with over a min to go it was a two possession game. These aren’t our parents 20-point leads.

This is a great point. I've seen not only the Celtics but countless other NBA teams blow huge leads in the fourth quarter, yet I'm conditioned, because of all the hoops I watched over my first four decades, to think of a 20-point lead as "insurmountable." (It often is in college basketball, which further complicates things.)

 

[Jimbodandy]

Sure I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. I’d disagree with the game being over when Tatum returned to the game up 23 w/7 to play before he was pulled just 3 min later once the game was safely in the bag up 25 w/4 to go. I said this earlier but people needs to adjust their thinking to how quickly a lead can dissipate in todays game compared to 20-30 years ago. Growing up any 2H 20-pt lead was garbage time……today you are a quick 60-75 sec run from it being a single digit game. There was another game tonight where the Heat also had a 23 pt lead w about 8 min to play and with over a min to go it was a two possession game. These aren’t our parents 20-point leads.

Yeah that's fair.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

This is a great point. I've seen not only the Celtics but countless other NBA teams blow huge leads in the fourth quarter, yet I'm conditioned, because of all the hoops I watched over my first four decades, to think of a 20-point lead as "insurmountable." (It often is in college basketball, which further complicates things.)

How often are 20 point leads really blown though? Yeah it happens, but more often than not the lead holds. Especially when it's in the 4th quarter and only 7 minutes are left.

Playing your starters in that position just means you are scared or have PTSD. It's playing against the worst possible outcome in a regular season game.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

How often are 20 point leads really blown though? Yeah it happens, but more often than not the lead holds. Especially when it's in the 4th quarter and only 7 minutes are left.

Playing your starters in that position just means you are scared or have PTSD. It's playing against the worst possible outcome in a regular season game.

The better question isn’t how many 20 point leads blown but how many 3-4 possession swings are there in a typical NBA game to where you are needlessly placing your teams victory in jeopardy…….so your starters don’t have to play an extra 7-8 possessions down the stretch. Seems counterproductive at best to not secure the game, foolish at worst.

As far as your question goes I don’t know the exact number but nearly every night there is a full slate a team is losing a 20-pt lead at some point in the game. So I’d guess at the halfway point maybe 40-50 that complete losing the 20-pt lead? I don’t know how accurate my 40-50 is, I’m pretty sure it’s somewhat close, but there are countless other games with 20 point swings since a 20-pt “lead” is an arbitrary starting point.

I’d also imagine that the characteristics of a team blowing these leads would be volume 3-pt shooting teams as this adds variance to both build and lose a lead and those .500 and slightly above. The latter rationale is that bad teams don’t build many 20-pt leads and elite teams don’t blow them as much. That .500 to .600-type team would appear to be most vulnerable to this which is right in our wheelhouse.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

How often are 20 point leads really blown though? Yeah it happens, but more often than not the lead holds. Especially when it's in the 4th quarter and only 7 minutes are left.

Playing your starters in that position just means you are scared or have PTSD. It's playing against the worst possible outcome in a regular season game.

The Sixers just lost a 24 point lead in the 3Q. Here's a story and from that story:

-The Sixers crunch time offense still looks like a chicken running around without its head. The teams need for another playmaker is frustrating given the payroll.​

​

-There is no other team as good at losing in heartbreaking fashion than the Sixers.​

Sounds like a SOSH game thread post.

edit: according to this win probability calculator - http://stats.inpredictable.com/nba/wpCalc.php - leading by 20 at the beginning of the 3Q without the ball has a 93.6% chance of winning. It's up to 98.9% at the beginning of the 4Q. So not infrequently but not unheard of either.

edit 2: here are some stats from the 2018-19 season: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26725776/this-season-massive-comeback-nba

 

[Cesar Crespo]

The Sixers just lost a 24 point lead in the 3Q. Here's a story and from that story:

-The Sixers crunch time offense still looks like a chicken running around without its head. The teams need for another playmaker is frustrating given the payroll.​

​

-There is no other team as good at losing in heartbreaking fashion than the Sixers.​

Sounds like a SOSH game thread post.

edit: according to this win probability calculator - http://stats.inpredictable.com/nba/wpCalc.php - leading by 20 at the beginning of the 3Q without the ball has a 93.6% chance of winning. It's up to 98.9% at the beginning of the 4Q. So not infrequently but not unheard of either.

edit 2: here are some stats from the 2018-19 season: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26725776/this-season-massive-comeback-nba

So it's like blowing a lead in the 9th.

 

[Jimbodandy]

The Sixers just lost a 24 point lead in the 3Q. Here's a story and from that story:

-The Sixers crunch time offense still looks like a chicken running around without its head. The teams need for another playmaker is frustrating given the payroll.​

​

-There is no other team as good at losing in heartbreaking fashion than the Sixers.​

Sounds like a SOSH game thread post.

edit: according to this win probability calculator - http://stats.inpredictable.com/nba/wpCalc.php - leading by 20 at the beginning of the 3Q without the ball has a 93.6% chance of winning. It's up to 98.9% at the beginning of the 4Q. So not infrequently but not unheard of either.

edit 2: here are some stats from the 2018-19 season: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/26725776/this-season-massive-comeback-nba

Yeah looks like someone did a find and replace on "Celtics" with "Sixers".

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Yeah looks like someone did a find and replace on "Celtics" with "Sixers".

You could replace with “Nuggets”, “Heat” or “Bulls” off the top of my head as well. The Celtics aren’t any different than other similar type teams (.500-ish) in blowing leads. The Heat held on yesterday but the locals down here in the poker room making SoSH look passive in their outrage at blowing big leads.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I know some of this is due to MS coming back, but the C's were also up big a lot of the game

Romeo's prior 2 games
4/7, 1/3, 2/3, 11 points, 1 rebound, 1 assist, 1 TO in 17:30
5/7, 2/4, 0/0, 12 points, 2 rebounds, 2 blocks, 1 TO in 23:05

then he gets 4 minutes of non garbage time and a total of 7:55 all together.

1/1, 1/1, 0/0, 3 points and a TO.

For the most part, I think Ime gives the youth a chance and minutes to play. But he also doesn't seem consistent with rewarding good play. If a guy plays badly for 5 games, he'll play him a 6th. He'll do well the 6th just to get benched the 7th. It's weird. Why not reduce his time after a couple bad games rather than a few good ones?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

I know some of this is due to MS coming back, but the C's were also up big a lot of the game

Romeo's prior 2 games
4/7, 1/3, 2/3, 11 points, 1 rebound, 1 assist, 1 TO in 17:30
5/7, 2/4, 0/0, 12 points, 2 rebounds, 2 blocks, 1 TO in 23:05

then he gets 4 minutes of non garbage time and a total of 7:55 all together.

1/1, 1/1, 0/0, 3 points and a TO.

For the most part, I think Ime gives the youth a chance and minutes to play. But he also doesn't seem consistent with rewarding good play. If a guy plays badly for 5 games, he'll play him a 6th. He'll do well the 6th just to get benched the 7th. It's weird. Why not reduce his time after a couple bad games rather than a few good ones?

From nearly starters minutes to garbage time. Incredible.

 

[128]

How often are 20 point leads really blown though? Yeah it happens, but more often than not the lead holds. Especially when it's in the 4th quarter and only 7 minutes are left.

Playing your starters in that position just means you are scared or have PTSD. It's playing against the worst possible outcome in a regular season game.

OKC trailed by 28 points last nite against Chicago and ended up losing by one.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

OKC trailed by 28 points last nite against Chicago and ended up losing by one.

Yeah, we already determined it happens. But if you have a 20 point lead in the 4th, you have a 98.9% chance of winning.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

OKC trailed by 28 points last nite against Chicago and ended up losing by one.

Full slate of games there is almost one 20-pt lead blown. The team doesn’t necessarily lose the game but it goes from 20+ to 1-2 possession game.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Full slate of games there is almost one 20-pt lead blown. The team doesn’t necessarily lose the game but it goes from 20+ to 1-2 possession game.

Sure, but a team comes back from 20 in the 2nd. A 20 point lead in the 4th is an entirely different animal.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Sure, but a team comes back from 20 in the 2nd. A 20 point lead in the 4th is an entirely different animal.

Completely but you are underselling how many 20-pt 4Q leads are lost without the team actually losing the game. This is why real Tacko-like garbage time doesn’t occur anymore until the final 2-3 minutes with rare exception. A 20-pt game early 4Q is still extremely competitive which wasn’t the case years ago.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Completely but you are underselling how many 20-pt 4Q leads are lost without the team actually losing the game. This is why real Tacko-like garbage time doesn’t occur anymore until the final 2-3 minutes with rare exception. A 20-pt game early 4Q is still extremely competitive which wasn’t the case years ago.

Or you are overselling it. Are there numbers either way? Plus Ime had his starters out there until 4 minutes were left, with a 20+ point lead. That's not early 4th quarter.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Or you are overselling it. Are there numbers either way? Plus Ime had his starters out there until 4 minutes were left, with a 20+ point lead. That's not early 4th quarter.

On the same day the Lakers came back from 20 down with 5 min to go. I’m in tune to this stuff nightly with live betting strategies……nobody is pulling starters in a 20-pt game until the final few minutes. They just aren’t. When I was in Vegas a couple months ago I remember Chris Paul checking back in with 6 to go and a 22-pt lead while two guys were screaming at the big screen for whatever reason. Anthony Edwards banged knees on a hard screen up 17 w 1:10 to go in the game bc it was a 13-pt game a min earlier and the Wolves had 5 guys waiting at the scorers table. Wolves boards were irate about how Edwards shouldn’t have been in the game.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

From nearly starters minutes to garbage time. Incredible.

That's because Smart came back and how many people want Smart + Romeo or DS + Romeo on the floor together for long stretches?

 

[benhogan]

On the same day the Lakers came back from 20 down with 5 min to go. I’m in tune to this stuff nightly with live betting strategies……nobody is pulling starters in a 20-pt game until the final few minutes. They just aren’t. When I was in Vegas a couple months ago I remember Chris Paul checking back in with 6 to go and a 22-pt lead while two guys were screaming at the big screen for whatever reason. Anthony Edwards banged knees on a hard screen up 17 w 1:10 to go in the game bc it was a 13-pt game a min earlier and the Wolves had 5 guys waiting at the scorers table. Wolves boards were irate about how Edwards shouldn’t have been in the game.

OKC was down 17pts to the Bulls last night with 5:50 left.
OKC goes small and sped the game up

:31 seconds left, OKC with the ball down 3

111-110 final score

 

[bakahump]

Well arent we also missing the major point that Tatum was having another "Career night".

I get it. Its Imes job to protect these guys from themselves. BUT when 50 is well within reason the coach may actually be building bridges by letting his young super star get that 50.
I am sure like Max contracts and NBA2K ratings all these guys are well aware what a 40-50 pt game means. Your top story on the eSPiN. Press notice. Refs notice. Girls notice. Other players notice. Free Agents Notice.

"Allowing" JT to get 50 is a good thing for morale. Will his legs be a bit more tired the next day by playing that extra 4 mins? Maybe. But the bennys may offset that.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Well arent we also missing the major point that Tatum was having another "Career night".

I get it. Its Imes job to protect these guys from themselves. BUT when 50 is well within reason the coach may actually be building bridges by letting his young super star get that 50.
I am sure like Max contracts and NBA2K ratings all these guys are well aware what a 40-50 pt game means. Your top story on the eSPiN. Press notice. Refs notice. Girls notice. Other players notice. Free Agents Notice.

"Allowing" JT to get 50 is a good thing for morale. Will his legs be a bit more tired the next day by playing that extra 4 mins? Maybe. But the bennys may offset that.

I don't think there was any problem with Tatum's usage there he played 32 minutes and they were trying to get him 50.
I do have an issue with Al Horford being asked to play 35 minutes in a blowout, and all the starters getting heavy minutes with a big lead instead of staggering them. Now it wasn't TERRIBLE because we got to sit everyone decently early and the bench held, but cycling guys in would likely have given you the same result AND if the bench goes cold you have starters mixed in to help, instead of going heavy on the starters and if the Bench had collapsed having to bring them back in.

It's a blowout win so it was fine, but it's indicative of Ime's issues where he just rides 5-6 guys as hard as he can for as long as he can because he is short on ideas.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I don't think there was any problem with Tatum's usage there he played 32 minutes and they were trying to get him 50.
I do have an issue with Al Horford being asked to play 35 minutes in a blowout, and all the starters getting heavy minutes with a big lead instead of staggering them. Now it wasn't TERRIBLE because we got to sit everyone decently early and the bench held, but cycling guys in would likely have given you the same result AND if the bench goes cold you have starters mixed in to help, instead of going heavy on the starters and if the Bench had collapsed having to bring them back in.

It's a blowout win so it was fine, but it's indicative of Ime's issues where he just rides 5-6 guys as hard as he can for as long as he can because he is short on ideas.

Are you able to expand on this issue? Why is the bolded a problem? What teams manage this the best? How many wins do you estimate its cost this team?

 

[Cellar-Door]

Are you able to expand on this issue? Why is the bolded a problem? What teams manage this the best? How many wins do you estimate its cost this team?

The problem is that you play your starters too many minutes. As to teams who manage it best... SA and GS traditionally did a nice job of load management. It's part of the normal process of staggering, which Ime doesn't do. Since Ime doesn't do a good job of getting his guys rest even in blowouts he ends up playing guys a lot, as they already hit heavy loads by the late 3rd, now sometimes, we blow a team way out and Ime gets to rest his guys, like against WAS (though why Horford his oldest player is playing 35 minutes is beyond me), but other times those tired guys blow the lead and end up playing 40. Or he goes to a bench heavy unit that gets smacked and has the bring back the starters.

It isn't some unique strategy to blowouts, it's his consistent failure to build a good rotation and get his starters rest.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

The problem is that you play your starters too many minutes. As to teams who manage it best... SA and GS traditionally did a nice job of load management. It's part of the normal process of staggering, which Ime doesn't do. Since Ime doesn't do a good job of getting his guys rest even in blowouts he ends up playing guys a lot, as they already hit heavy loads by the late 3rd, now sometimes, we blow a team way out and Ime gets to rest his guys, like against WAS (though why Horford his oldest player is playing 35 minutes is beyond me), but other times those tired guys blow the lead and end up playing 40. Or he goes to a bench heavy unit that gets smacked and has the bring back the starters.

It isn't some unique strategy to blowouts, it's his consistent failure to build a good rotation and get his starters rest.

I would like to hear about GS' management of line-ups in blow out games since they have had quite a few of them and they feature a few players who are in the same age zip code as Horford. Do they consistently pull Curry and Green as early as possible in blowouts? Do you know how teams monitor player minutes around the league and from one team to the next or if they have guidance for usage of older players?

 

[Cellar-Door]

I would like to hear about GS' management of line-ups in blow out games since they have had quite a few of them and they feature a few players who are in the same age zip code as Horford. Do they consistently pull Curry and Green as early as possible in blowouts? Do you know how teams monitor player minutes around the league and from one team to the next or if they have guidance for usage of older players?

I don't have enough data, anecdotally, during the biggest GS years Kerr used to sit his guys pretty early and go to the bench. However you're focusing way too much on blowouts, my point is that his normal shitty sub patterns and minutes management leads to bigger minutes even in blowouts.

However, I would also say that the easiest way to get your stars rest in blowouts is to have a good regular rest pattern, if you are setting up to have your guys play 37-40 minutes in a game, you're not going to get them good rest even in a blowout.

Looking at the top teams (plus us) with perimeter star combos, here are the shared minutes:

Tatum and Brown play 27.2 MPG together
Paul and Booker- 23.7
Conley and Mitchell- 17.3
Lowry and Butler- 21.9
Curry and Wiggins- 24
Curry and Klay 17.7
Giannis and Jrue- 23
Holiday and Middleton 21
Giannis and Middleton 21.5
LaVine and Derozan- 22.7
Harden and Durant 28.3

So outside of Harden/Durant, the Celtics are playing way more minutes with both their perimeter scorers on the floor, some of that is just the sheer minutes they are playing, but part of it is the staggering. Ime doesn't do enough in terms of snagging Tatum 90-120 seconds while Jaylen works, then vice versa throughout the game.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I would like to hear about GS' management of line-ups in blow out games since they have had quite a few of them and they feature a few players who are in the same age zip code as Horford. Do they consistently pull Curry and Green as early as possible in blowouts? Do you know how teams monitor player minutes around the league and from one team to the next or if they have guidance for usage of older players?

From 2014/15-2018/19, when Golden State went to 5 straight finals, winning 3 of them, Curry averaged 32.7, 34.2, 33.4, 32.0 and 33.8mpg. Every single one of those seasons was below Currys' career average of 34.3mpg. So it would appear that rest and sitting guys in blowouts was pretty routine when they were winning, and Curry was obviously younger then.

In the 10 losses that Curry has played in this year, he's averaged over 37.0mpg (and the only game under 35 minutes was their only real blowout loss, in which he played 29 minutes). On the season, Curry is averaging 34.4mpg, so when they win, and win big, Curry is definitely getting rest.

Draymond is much different, because for his career, he only averages 28.5mpg. So he's been getting some rest since he came into the league, compared to Al. This season, Draymond is averaging 29.9 and Al is averaging 29.1. Of course, Draymond is 4 years younger than Al.

 

[benhogan]

Because Steph Curry, who could run a marathon in 3hrs in unlaced sneakers, is a great comp for Al Horford?

Dray is younger than Al when Horford last played with Boston under Brad

In addition to that, Steph and Dray are worlds better than a 35yr old Al Horford and should be on the floor more. Yet Al plays similar minutes to Dray

Anyone that can't recognize IME is pressing/riding his starters hard isn't paying attention or enjoys being pedantic

 

[NomarsFool]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Bruno Fernando should have been in there to start the 4th quarter. It's more that there wasn't an opportunity for Grant Williams to play more than 22 minutes, or Josh Richardson to play more than 16 minutes, or that Romeo Langford couldn't have played more than 3 minutes of non-garbage time or that Freedom couldn't have played for a 4 minute stretch sometime in the 2nd half.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

"Allowing" JT to get 50 is a good thing for morale. Will his legs be a bit more tired the next day by playing that extra 4 mins? Maybe. But the bennys may offset that.

If JT’s legs are affected by 4 min of half court iso and half ass defense we have bigger problems than Ime’s rotations.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Bruno Fernando should have been in there to start the 4th quarter. It's more that there wasn't an opportunity for Grant Williams to play more than 22 minutes, or Josh Richardson to play more than 16 minutes, or that Romeo Langford couldn't have played more than 3 minutes of non-garbage time or that Freedom couldn't have played for a 4 minute stretch sometime in the 2nd half.

Bruno wasn't available anyway. Not that it changes your argument.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Ime is using a short rotation and riding his young stars a lot. On that we can agree but if you ignore the cries for development while trying to win (not mutually exclusive but hard enough on a team with enough talent) this team really doesn't have more than a few guys down the bench who can produce at an NBA level.

Spoiler: LEBRON - Don't Click!!!!

If Udoka is trying to win games, he doesn't have much choice playing a short rotation from what I can see but that is clearly up for debate.

That said, people still haven't demonstrated the harm. What is the cost to this team?

Edit: To address the GS thing, nobody answered the question? What does GS do differently than the Celtics? Because I can find games this season where Curry and Green stayed in late in the fourth with more than their season averages during big leads. Kerr typically adjusts on the follow from what I have seen and Udoka really doesn't seem much different. Horford is averaging close to a career low in MPG (ex-last season) despite all the cries of overuse. Its not like the Celtics are playing Horford VanVleet minutes or anything.

 

[Cesar Crespo]

Ime is using a short rotation and riding his young stars a lot. On that we can agree but if you ignore the cries for development while trying to win (not mutually exclusive but hard enough on a team with enough talent) this team really doesn't have more than a few guys down the bench who can produce at an NBA level.

Spoiler: LEBRON - Don't Click!!!!

View attachment 48757

If Udoka is trying to win games, he doesn't have much choice playing a short rotation from what I can see but that is clearly up for debate.

That said, people still haven't demonstrated the harm. What is the cost to this team?

loss of development time for youth and possible wear and tear down the line for the stars.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

To be blunt, if this team wants to see what they've got with the younger guys, they likely going to struggle in doing so. As to the wear and tear, its a legitimate concern but unless this team is ok missing a shot at the playoffs, they really have no choice. Its not lost on me that Al Horford's production may continue to decline as a result but again, not sure what choice there is. They need to squeeze all of the toothpaste out of that tube just to get a shot at the real season.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

To be blunt, if this team wants to see what they've got with the younger guys, they likely going to struggle in doing so. As to the wear and tear, its a legitimate concern but unless this team is ok missing a shot at the playoffs, they really have no choice. Its not lost on me that Al Horford's production may continue to decline as a result but again, not sure what choice there is. They need to squeeze all of the toothpaste out of that tube just to get a shot at the real season.

This begs the question though. Is there any evidence that continuing to squeeze the toothpaste will make this team anything other than a .500 team? If they were running guys into the ground and winning games, I think there would be a lot less folks arguing against Ime's current strategy, but he's running them into the ground and they are still losing games, mostly because they can't close out close games.

The theory is that if you get guys some rest earlier in a game, they'll have more energy late in games, so they don't piss away leads, fall apart, etc. The C's have 8 guys averaging over 22.7mpg this year. The Warriors have 4 guys averaging over 21.7mpg. But the Warriors have a ton of guys getting 15-21 minutes a night. The C's have 1 guy. At some point, Ime has to make some changes, or resign ourselves to a .500 team, I guess.

 

[Cellar-Door]

Ime is using a short rotation and riding his young stars a lot. On that we can agree but if you ignore the cries for development while trying to win (not mutually exclusive but hard enough on a team with enough talent) this team really doesn't have more than a few guys down the bench who can produce at an NBA level.

Spoiler: LEBRON - Don't Click!!!!

View attachment 48757

If Udoka is trying to win games, he doesn't have much choice playing a short rotation from what I can see but that is clearly up for debate.

That said, people still haven't demonstrated the harm. What is the cost to this team?

Edit: To address the GS thing, nobody answered the question? What does GS do differently than the Celtics? Because I can find games this season where Curry and Green stayed in late in the fourth with more than their season averages during big leads. Kerr typically adjusts on the follow from what I have seen and Udoka really doesn't seem much different. Horford is averaging close to a career low in MPG (ex-last season) despite all the cries of overuse. Its not like the Celtics are playing Horford VanVleet minutes or anything.

You are using LEBRON entirely wrong here.
Why would you use a metric that measures impact to determine if a player getting limited minutes should get more? In their explanation of the metric they go out of their way to repeatedly note that it isn't a talent estimation or predictive in any way, and that it is heavily determined by role and usage. If the argument is that guys are being mis-used, LEBRON won't tell you much.

Beyond that, here are the percentiles of various of those guys:
RIchardson- 51st percentile LEBRON (rotation level wins added)
Schroder- 51st percentile LEBRON (Starter level wins added, because he played more minutes)
Romeo- 43rd percentile LEBRON (Rotation wins added)
Grant- 27th percentile LEBRON (Rotation wins added)
Enes- 60th percentile LEBRON (Rotation wins added)

So we have 8 guys above average, and another just below, that's about right for an NBA roster anyway.

Nesmith and Pritchard grade out as fringe NBA. However since it's impact not talent, PP was a solid 44th percentile rotation player last year, RIchardson was 78th-80th percentile a few years ago, Schroder was 72nd and 59th percentile the 2 years before this one.
LEBRON isn't a good metric for deciding bench usage.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I am not using LEBRON wrong - it illustrates exactly what I was pointing out. Specifically that they have about eight guys who can produce at an NBA level. We can discuss percentiles but that is too granular for what we were initially talking about. By the way, we can use traditional or counting stats if you'd prefer. There is no hidden math that shows that Langford, Pritchard or Nesmith are about to break out with more usage. They are all various degrees of really raw, flawed young bench guys no matter what you look at.

Of course the point is that is why Udoka has such a tight rotation. Again, its a chicken/egg thing whether playing some of the young players might unlock better performance and while I don't necessarily agree with all of the rotation decisions, its completely rational. Furthermore, in the quote you cited from that Heavy article yesterday, the other NBA exec and coach acknowledged this very dynamic. They commented on his tight rotations but I didn't read those quotes as being as critical as you are.

Again, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that Udoka's rotations and minutes allocations are doing harm to this basketball team. This may be the case - I am simply asking for what the impact of this is on their win totals.

Here is the quote btw - I took it as modestly encouraging but YRMV:

Said another front office source who’s worked with new Celtic coach Ime Udoka, “It looks like Ime is doing what a lot of first-time head coaches do: He’s leaning on some veterans and playing guys a lot of minutes. But Ime’s a good coach. He’ll be better. I know he’s got the support of Brad and ownership.”

“They’ve got some guys all through the rotation that you have to play,” said a former NBA head coach. “But some of them are not that good that they should play no matter what.”

 

[Cellar-Door]

I am not using LEBRON wrong - it illustrates exactly what I was pointing out. Specifically that they have about eight guys who can produce at an NBA level. We can discuss percentiles but that is too granular for what we were initially talking about.

Of course the point is that is why Udoka has such a tight rotation. Again, its a chicken/egg thing whether playing some of the young players might unlock better performance and while I don't necessarily agree with all of the rotation decisions, its completely rational. Furthermore, in the quote you cited from that Heavy article yesterday, the other NBA exec and coach acknowledged this very dynamic. They commented on his tight rotations but I didn't read those quotes as being as critical as you are.

Again, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that Udoka's rotations and minutes allocations are doing harm to this basketball team. This may be the case - I am simply asking for what the impact of this is on their win totals.

You are 100% using LEBRON wrong if you are using to illustrate that guys shouldn't play more, because it is a minutes and role dependent metric, the very thing you are arguing is a positive (that they aren't getting minutes) drives the metric you are using.

The exec was definitely being critical, he was clearly saying that as a young coach Ime was screwing up his rotations. You don't say "But Ime’s a good coach. He’ll be better. I know he’s got the support of Brad and ownership.” unless the first part of your quote was meant to say that you thought his heavy minutes and tight rotation are bad coaching. For him to be better, he has to be doing poorly now, and you don't say a guy has support from the GM and owner unless it's to counter the idea that a guy might get canned.

As to the impact... it's impossible to know. What we do know is that historically playing tight rotations and heavy minutes is bad.. it leads to loss of performance and injury, we also can look at this team and see it is a .500 team despite the talent, and that it isn't better than last year's team in terms of results, despite a number of talent upgrades throughout the rotation. We can look at a team that loses a lot of big leads with the starters on the floor, and where it repeatedly looks like they wear down. Can I quantify it with data.. nope, nor can you quantify with data what the impact of less minutes would be. The best we can do is look at patterns and history and say.... this approach has basically never worked, and it doesn't appear to be working now.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

You are 100% using LEBRON wrong if you are using to illustrate that guys shouldn't play more, because it is a minutes and role dependent metric, the very thing you are arguing is a positive (that they aren't getting minutes) drives the metric you are using.

The exec was definitely being critical, he was clearly saying that as a young coach Ime was screwing up his rotations. You don't say "But Ime’s a good coach. He’ll be better. I know he’s got the support of Brad and ownership.” unless the first part of your quote was meant to say that you thought his heavy minutes and tight rotation are bad coaching. For him to be better, he has to be doing poorly now, and you don't say a guy has support from the GM and owner unless it's to counter the idea that a guy might get canned.

As to the impact... it's impossible to know. What we do know is that historically playing tight rotations and heavy minutes is bad.. it leads to loss of performance and injury, we also can look at this team and see it is a .500 team despite the talent, and that it isn't better than last year's team in terms of results, despite a number of talent upgrades throughout the rotation. We can look at a team that loses a lot of big leads with the starters on the floor, and where it repeatedly looks like they wear down. Can I quantify it with data.. nope, nor can you quantify with data what the impact of less minutes would be. The best we can do is look at patterns and history and say.... this approach has basically never worked, and it doesn't appear to be working now.

I used LEBRON correctly - it does capture things that correlate to winning basketball games even in small sizes but of course, we ignore those samples for obvious reasons like we do with anything else from counting stats to anecdotes.

Again, you have made multiple posts claiming that Udoka is hurting the team's results with his rotations and minutes allocations. This may well be the case but I don't think its asking too much for something to substantiate that view.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I used LEBRON correctly - it does capture things that correlate to winning basketball games even in small sizes but of course, we ignore those samples for obvious reasons like we do with anything else from counting stats to anecdotes.

Again, you have made multiple posts claiming that Udoka is hurting the team's results with his rotations and minutes allocations. I am being dead serious that this may well be the case but I don't think its asking too much for something to substantiate that view.

I mean...
1. I have, repeatedly, as have others, you just ignore it,
2. You have no idea how LEBRON works apparently.. https://www.bball-index.com/lebron-introduction/ it's not predictive and it is minutes/role based. It by definition can't tell you whether guys should play more or have different roles.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

I mean...
1. I have, repeatedly, as have others, you just ignore it,
2. You have no idea how LEBRON works apparently.. https://www.bball-index.com/lebron-introduction/ it's not predictive and it is minutes/role based. It by definition can't tell you whether guys should play more or have different roles.

1. Trust me isn't a response. You raised an issue of concern but you can't tie it to results. That doesn't mean your concern isn't valid but maybe you shouldn't be so certain that its an issue. And again, I am coming up short for the alternatives here. Playing the bench guys more and struggling isn't likely to make anyone happy.
2. Ok - I understand our disconnect. I agree LEBRON isn't predictive and to be clear, I wasn't saying it was.

Let me be clearer and let's get away from a specific metric. I am looking and can see nothing in past results or even current performance that suggests that Udoka is holding anyone back given their production to date as well as what the coaches see as well as what we observe during games (least important obviously). That isn't to say that these guys wouldn't be more valuable with more run - that is entirely possible. However if there is a case to be made, its based more on hope than any backward or forward looking metrics.

 

[Cellar-Door]

1. Trust me isn't a response. You raised an issue of concern but you can't tie it to results. That doesn't mean your concern isn't valid but maybe you shouldn't be so certain that its an issue. And again, I am coming up short for the alternatives here. Playing the bench guys more and struggling isn't likely to make anyone happy.
2. Ok - I understand our disconnect. I agree LEBRON isn't predictive and to be clear, I wasn't saying it was.

Let me be clearer and let's get away from a specific metric. I am looking and can see nothing in past production or even current performance that suggests that Udoka is holding anyone back given their production to date as well as what the coaches see as well as what we observe during games (least important obviously). That isn't to say that these guys wouldn't be more valuable with more run - that is entirely possible. However if there is a case to be made, its based more on hope than any backward or forward looking metrics.

I don't think Ime is holding guys back... that may be someone else. I think he's making bad decisions with minutes and rotations that put too much stress on our stars, causing them to fatigue during games and increasing their chances of injury. He should play his bench more because they are at worst an average NBA bench, and over an 82 game season you need to use your bench to keep your stars healthy and fresh.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Brad Stevens in the crowd for Marquette/Providence. I can’t imagine why a GM would be at this game which features zero NBA prospects and only some marginal two-way guys.

Maybe he’s scouting Eddie Cooley?

 

[mcpickl]

Brad Stevens in the crowd for Marquette/Providence. I can’t imagine why a GM would be at this game which features zero NBA prospects and only some marginal two-way guys.

Maybe he’s scouting Eddie Cooley?

ESPN has Justin Lewis at #43 on their current top 100.

I'd guess he took the short trip to look at him

Darryl Morsell at #79 as well.

 

[Cellar-Door]

ESPN has Justin Lewis at #43 on their current top 100.

I'd guess he took the short trip to look at him

Darryl Morsell at #79 as well.

A wing who shoots 31% from 3? Sounds like our guy.

 

[Cellar-Door]

So I have been critical of Ime and still think he's screwing a lot of things up, however.... there are indications he is learning.

1. Enes has been exiled to the far ends of the bench.
2. While TL/Al are starting together, they are playing less together, and we are playing less minutes with neither (hence the Enes minutes disappearing)
3. For the most part, except for the occasional baffling decision (the ATL game), Ime has tried really hard to separate Schroder and Smart
4. Bench guys like Schroder and Richardson have quicker hooks when they struggle. (now an issue is he needs to go to another bench guy not rush back Tatum/Brown, but we're working on it).

A couple moves to help him out from Brad in swapping out some guys for a different big and PG would really help.

 

[NomarsFool]

Maybe Grant's not the answer at the #4, but he's played relatively well there this season and I'd like to see him get a little more run there.

The interesting thing is, they could have their answer for a 3 point shooting PG in PP, but he's not getting much playing time at all. I realize PP's a challenge defensively, but it's something they could try and work with and develop with more playing time. It's not like any PG with outside shooting they are going to acquire is going to be perfect in everything, either.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

ESPN has Justin Lewis at #43 on their current top 100.

I'd guess he took the short trip to look at him

Darryl Morsell at #79 as well.

These are guys I’d expect to send your scouting staff to see but it’s good to see Brad apparently have an awesome work ethic.

(I still hope he was scouting Cooley)