I just got around to watching last night's game, and can't help but wonder...is it just the way you are forced to coach in the NBA that you stick with your starters who have nothing left? And this comes from Doc, who is considered a good coach and is respected. Particularly in light of how the bench played in the 1st half, dominating and playing with energy, what harm is there in pulling some starters who have nothing left? Do you risk losing them for the future?
Primarily referring to Pierce and Rondo. Pierce is very good at many things. He sucks at isolation at end of periods, I think we all know that. He also sucks when he is on the floor too many consecutive minutes. A few games back he entered the game at start of 4th, and as expected had nothing left by the end.
Rondo is also very good at many things. He can take over a game unlike many others, seemingly at will. He also infuriates fans (and apparently his coach) with periods of apathy and less energy, as well as by slowing down and not pushing the tempo. They built a huge lead, mainly with tough defense, crappy Atlanta shooting, and pushing the ball in transition. Rondo seemingly needs the ball in his hands too much of the time, slowing things down, and limiting teammate's involvement.
I guess I am more of a fan of the college game; bust your ass during your time on the floor, sub in and out often. I hate the "pull the starters late in 1st, back in partway through 2nd" mentality of the NBA.