There are so many directions in which I could go, with the monumentally unfunny conceit of a top ten list of fake reasons why they are keeping Rivers on by offering a contract extension at the top of the list. But there is a sidebar that he includes that he believes makes his most powerful argument, which is that Doc gets immense credit for improving the young players on the Celtics and yet Sportsguy believes that to be nonsense. So let's look at his sidebar, keeping in mind that I am hardly a Doc Rivers apologist, shall we? I'll put Sportsguy's comments in quotation marks and will precede my responses with ***.:
"Who are these 'young guys who have really improved under Doc Rivers'?"
***Scare quotation marks. Well played, sir.
"• Al Jefferson, definitely. He's been the big success story."
*** This may not be starting off as well as you think it is. I know your logic -- concede that one player has improved without question. It makes you look fairminded and magnanimous. But here is the problem -- Al Jefferson has become a legitimate young star in this league. When he entered the NBA he had immense promise but because of inconsistency and foul trouble he could not stay in games. Last year he hurt his ankle and was a nonfactor -- coming into the season, some C's fans were even worried that AJ would turn into a bust. Instead he has had a breakout season, especially in the last half. Whatever else you have to say after this, the best young player on the C's has improved a great deal. It's hard to see how what follows is going to be as trenchant as you think it is going to be. I'm sensing an argument along the lines of "The Bulls of the 90s did not have superstar shooting guard play other than Jordan." Al Jefferson equals five Sebastian Telfairs. But I'll continue to play along.
"• Tony Allen was making major strides until he blew out his knee while executing a flying one-handed slam four seconds after the whistle blew. Can't count him."
*** Wait a second. Can't count him? Assuming you do not think that it is Doc's fault that Allen got hurt (do you?) the only part of your sentence that is relevant is "Tony Allen was making great strides . . .". Well, why the hell can't you count that? The issue is whether young players have improved under Doc. The answer, by your admission, is that he was improving. If you won't count him, it is because doing so undermines your argument.
"• Rondo looked exceptionally good in the preseason, then was inexplicably buried behind inferior players for the next four months. Did he "improve" or did Rivers just start playing him? I'm going with the latter. Can't count him."
*** Maybe this is a fair argument, though let's keep in mind that during the preseason Simmons was already firmly on the Rondo bandwagon, so it is possible that he saw a more polished player than Doc did, who sees these guys every day in practice, scrimmages, and games. I realize that playing pickup ball at Holy Cross gives you the insight of a professional point guard (Note: he has actually written a column on this before. No I am not going to Google it.) but let's just say that young players are pretty unpredictable. His argument is only sound if you buy that he was good enough to play more from the outset, and even then if you do not believe that he is any better now than he was in October. This "can't count him" conceit is already bothering me.
"• Gomes and West are up and down; their per-minute numbers are no different than last season's. Same for Kendrick Perkins. They are better only because of an extra year's experience; that's it. Can't count them."
*** Note the caveat: "Their per-minute numbers are no different than last season's." This is an interesting argument. Per-minute numbers can be a very useful stat, especially if taken from a sample size that will prove it legitimate. If a guy has averaged comparable minutes and his numbers have dropped, that is telling. But when a young guy gets more minutes from his rookie to his second year and his numbers go up accordingly, that might well be (is?) a sign of improvement. A coach trusting a guy to play 32 rather than 22 minutes, and having the player's productivity increase is to my mind a clear sign of maturity, and yes, of improvement. So what has happened with Gomes and West? Gomes averaged 22.5 minutes per game last season and started 33 games. He shot 48.7% from the field, 75% from the line, grabbed 4.9 boards a game and scored 7.6 points per contest. This season he started 56 games (that seems significant . . .) and averages 31 minutes per. He has shot 47%, 82% from the line, and has averaged 5.6 boards and 12.1 points per game. Let's just say I am not convinced that Gomes has not improved. As for West? Simmons seems right -- West plays slightly less, starts less frequently, and his numbers are slightly down. Of course he improved tremendously from his rookie year to his second season, when Doc was also the coach, so that sort of complicates things. Basically, I'm not willing to concede that these guys have not improved under Doc given that both players have improved under Doc. Whether they have improved enough is another question. But you having poorly conceived your argument is not my fault.
"• Gerald Green still runs around like a chicken with its head cut off. I don't blame Doc here because Green's hoops IQ almost can't be calculated; there's a decent chance he arrived in this country three years ago in a UFO. Can't count him."
*** I tend to agree that in the long term, for all of his talent, Green is going to hit a ceiling and will be out of the league in four years. Nonetheless, the question is not what will happen, it is improvement. And in his second year in the league, Green is playing just under twice as many minutes than last year, averages more than twice as many points and exactly twice as many boards. That means he is "better" than he was last year. And if he is better than last year it means he has improved. And if he has improved that means you not only can count him, but if you are being intellectually honest, you must count him. Plus, you admitted that you don't blame Doc -- whether that is for Green's basketball IQ or for you using the phrase "like a chicken with his head cut off" is another matter.
"• Leon Powe is headed for a distinguished 12-year career in Italy. Can't count him."
*** But again, the question isn't what Leon Powe's future holds. The question is: Has he improved under Doc Rivers? You created the fucking question, not me. It is the entire gist of your argument. At least adhere to it. So has Powe improved? Well he has not played a lot. But in April he has had by far his most productive month by far. March was his third most productive month. Second was the first month of the season, November, when he played six games and presumably Doc had not yet gotten a sense of the sort of player that he is and where he fit into things. Oh, and he scored a season, and thus career, high of 19 the other night. It appears from looking at the evidence that Leon Powe will be a better Italian league player tomorrow than he would have been in November. That is to say, he has improved under Doc Rivers.
"• Over the past six months, Telfair's career free-falled to the degree that "AND 1" sent scouts to the last 10 Celtics games. Can't count him."
Agreed. Telfair has not improved. You are categorically right on one player, the last one you named. Otherwise a case can be made that every other player you mentioned has improved. And let's keep in mind that you see this improvement deal as your ace in the hole argument.
"• As far as I can tell, we have no other young players."
This waste of verbiage probably seemed cutting when you felt that you had made it clear that your argument was so absolutely true that you did not have to look at the very evidence that you accused others of ignoring. At least you are brazen in your hypocrisy. In the meantime, I very much look forward to Kevin Durant or Greg Oden wearing green in a few months.
No comments:
Post a Comment