The Brad Stevens thread - More Clueless Than Alicia Silverstone

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,200
Maine
I think the problem is "Absolutism" on the part of the board. And probably rightfully so.
(I know I am guilty of it).
When you (or I) Write "I would do this before anything else" we as a board tend to say "REALLY?! On a Saturday morning you would make a cup of coffee before banging Emily Ratajkowski? Your Nuts!"

While in everyday life you might make a cup of coffee before anything else (the paper, espn, maybe even banging the wife etc etc) there are certain things (Exiting the burning building, checking Schefter during NFL Free Agency, computing Mookies new OPS) that you would do before anything else.

So Would I take Stevens before a top 10 NBA player? Probably not. I say probably because personal feelings do come into play (I would get coffee before Ratajkowski too....and I drink Decaf). So like Lebron....I really dislike the basketball player, even if he would instantly vault my team into the top 4 in the league and even if he is a good humanitarian. Durant? Yea I would take him over Stevens (even if he is non alpha bandwagon jumper).

Would I take Stevens over a non starting 5 player in the NBA? No doubt (and thats actually a majority of NBA Players. around 60-66% if my math is right). I would also probably take him over the 4th or 5th best starters (regardless of position) on every team (Maybe not GS or Bos...maybe.) But there are obvious exceptions. And those exceptions only prove the point. Its not an insult to Stevens to say I would Rather have Giannis. Its a testament that you need players that are that damn good before you turn Stevens down.

A better question might be what coach would you rather have? Pop? even through you probably only have him for another 3 years or so due to age? Who else?
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,200
Maine
Maybe so. And thats fine, too.

My point was taking a coach like Stevens over a player isnt that far fetched, With only the very best players not a fair trade.

We dont have to mean EVERY Player (even the ones you know you wouldnt trade a coach for) juts Almost all Players.

I am not sure of the original qoute. But if it was "I would take Stevens over NBA player" reeked of hyperbole. and Anyone reading that should know better then to assume that if it was Lebron or Giannas.

A simple "I agree with only the truly elite guys not a fair comp for what Stevens adds" would have saved alot of bandwidth.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,850
around the way
I think that a lot of it really depends on what kind of team you have. KC Jones gets credit for his years basically staying out of the way and only whacking guys around when they needed it, which wasn't often. A young team needs a mentor, part-time parent, teacher, and motivator. I think that a guy like Stevens would have incredible value with a roster like Denver, Phoenix, this team of course, and a few others. But he doesn't move the needle much, when you're talking about a Houston or Golden State. Most NBA coaches could coach rosters like that, and the coach bringing along young guys is less pertinent. They don't have a lot of young guys and already have a ton of vets to do it.

Comparing Stevens to Giannis in a vacuum is fun and all, but more important is what having Giannis or Stevens on this team for the next five years would do to this team's title chances for the next five years. And if you think, "duh, Giannis", how far do you have to go down the players list before that answer gets murky.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,364
New York, NY
I think that a lot of it really depends on what kind of team you have. KC Jones gets credit for his years basically staying out of the way and only whacking guys around when they needed it, which wasn't often. A young team needs a mentor, part-time parent, teacher, and motivator. I think that a guy like Stevens would have incredible value with a roster like Denver, Phoenix, this team of course, and a few others. But he doesn't move the needle much, when you're talking about a Houston or Golden State. Most NBA coaches could coach rosters like that, and the coach bringing along young guys is less pertinent. They don't have a lot of young guys and already have a ton of vets to do it.

Comparing Stevens to Giannis in a vacuum is fun and all, but more important is what having Giannis or Stevens on this team for the next five years would do to this team's title chances for the next five years. And if you think, "duh, Giannis", how far do you have to go down the players list before that answer gets murky.
This isn't really a counterpoint, as, obviously a lot has changed and the team was pretty young then, but it is worth remembering that the only significant difference between the Warriors team that won 51 games in 2014/15 and lost in the first round of the playoffs and the dominant Warriors team the following year that won 67 games and a championship was the addition of Steve Kerr. (The most significant additions were Livingston and Barbosa. David Lee played a lot less and Draymond Green played a lot more, but that is part of coaching. Draymond was already a defensive force, Jackson just either didn't understand that or didn't know how to use him properly.)

A counterpoint might be that Jackson was just a really bad coach, and that is certainly part of the equation, but good coaching also undeniably matters. With the Warriors now, it may matter less, but that's largely just because a good coach has already built a system around their talent and someone else could, presumably, come in and coast off that without too much difficulty.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,709
I think that a lot of it really depends on what kind of team you have. KC Jones gets credit for his years basically staying out of the way and only whacking guys around when they needed it, which wasn't often. A young team needs a mentor, part-time parent, teacher, and motivator. I think that a guy like Stevens would have incredible value with a roster like Denver, Phoenix, this team of course, and a few others. But he doesn't move the needle much, when you're talking about a Houston or Golden State. Most NBA coaches could coach rosters like that, and the coach bringing along young guys is less pertinent. They don't have a lot of young guys and already have a ton of vets to do it.

Comparing Stevens to Giannis in a vacuum is fun and all, but more important is what having Giannis or Stevens on this team for the next five years would do to this team's title chances for the next five years. And if you think, "duh, Giannis", how far do you have to go down the players list before that answer gets murky.
On the other hand Kyrie Irving played better last year in Boston as the focal point of opposing defenses than he had in Cleveland when teams couldn’t give him that sort of attention.

Stevens has been effective at talking players into being the best versions of themselves. And I think that has a lot of value.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,548
Santa Monica
On the other hand Kyrie Irving played better last year in Boston as the focal point of opposing defenses than he had in Cleveland when teams couldn’t give him that sort of attention.

Stevens has been effective at talking players into being the best versions of themselves. And I think that has a lot of value.
Agreed. Brad gets the most out of his players' skills, puts them in the best position to succeed, and they seem to buy into their roles.

I'm not sure if it makes sense to compare NBA players (top 10) vs. Brad, but I'd add a few things in Brad's favor:
1. Brad's salary is low relative to a well-paid/max player
2. Brad's salary doesn't count towards the cap and lets the team add more player talent
3. Brad gets better with age relative to a player (except Lebron) and could effectively coach for 20yrs.
4. Good players/free agents are interested in playing for a well coached/run organization.
5. Brad is involved in decision making for 48mins/game for the entire regular season + playoffs.
6. Injury risk/health issues is much lower for a coach vs a star player.

If I'm the owner of a new expansion team starting with a blank slate I may value signing Brad Stevens over any player.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,406
This isn't really a counterpoint, as, obviously a lot has changed and the team was pretty young then, but it is worth remembering that the only significant difference between the Warriors team that won 51 games in 2014/15 and lost in the first round of the playoffs and the dominant Warriors team the following year that won 67 games and a championship was the addition of Steve Kerr. (The most significant additions were Livingston and Barbosa. David Lee played a lot less and Draymond Green played a lot more, but that is part of coaching. Draymond was already a defensive force, Jackson just either didn't understand that or didn't know how to use him properly.)

A counterpoint might be that Jackson was just a really bad coach, and that is certainly part of the equation, but good coaching also undeniably matters. With the Warriors now, it may matter less, but that's largely just because a good coach has already built a system around their talent and someone else could, presumably, come in and coast off that without too much difficulty.
Great post as usual except one small quibble - and its debatable. I dont think Jackson was a bad coach per se. He was good at getting young players like Curry, Thompson and even Green acclimated to playing in the NBA. Furthermore, his preacher and "us vs the world" approach was integral to crystalizing the Warriors core. The problem is that he isn't very good at Xs and Os and even worse at working within an organizational framework.

This leads me to a larger point - coaches who possess an wide range of high level skills are rare in sports, let alone the NBA. In addition to having to motivate young men who are often wealthier and potentially more powerful than they are, coaches have to act as team spokesmen, middle management and, of course, field generals. Many good coaches are good at one or two facets of the job. However the number who tick all the boxes are probably in the single digits (and even then its debatable). I am biased but I think Stevens is best of breed in the ones we know about and its probably safe to assume Ainge/Wyc et al see him as a good middle manager given the commitment they have made to him.

benhogan and JakeRae are right too. A good coach is more valuable in certain situations versus others. But we have seen plenty of examples where seemingly very good teams underperform their talent (see the Raptors, OKC or even the recent Clippers teams) while lesser talented teams exceed expectations (see last year's Jazz).

In short, while on-the-court talent reigns supreme in the NBA, the value of a great coach may be discounted a bit too much by some pundits and fans. Fortunately the Celtics appear to have both a wealth of talent and good coaching in abundance for the upcoming season.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,223
Saint Paul, MN
I always thought an interesting way to look at it would be to see if you would trade Stevens for "star player" + their coach.

Stevens for Giannis + Budenholzer
Stevens for Davis + Gentry
Stevens for Curry + Kerr
Stevens for Towns + Thibs

And how far down on the top player list do you have to get to factor in the coach
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,548
Santa Monica
I always thought an interesting way to look at it would be to see if you would trade Stevens for "star player" + their coach.

Stevens for Giannis + Budenholzer
Stevens for Davis + Gentry
Stevens for Curry + Kerr
Stevens for Towns + Thibs

And how far down on the top player list do you have to get to factor in the coach
Maybe that's a better way of looking at it.

A huge part of the benefit of having the #1 or #1A Head Coach in the NBA is he doesn't impact the Celtics salary cap structure.

So using your suggestion Moops, the Celtics would have to lose a current player(s) to match up salaries. Who are you subtracting from the Celtics roster?

Marcus/Marcus/Baynes/Stevens for Giannis/Budenholzer would lead to several banners.

The thought of Stevens coaching anywhere else saddens me more then Giannis wearing Green makes me happy. Clearly, Brad is my binky.
 
Last edited:

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
I'm very much on team Brad, but one other advantage of taking the star player, if you have an elite GM, is that you can then turn that player into other assets on the backend of their tenure. This mitigates some of the benefit of Brad's much longer shelf life.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,636
Portsmouth, NH
I'm very much on team Brad, but one other advantage of taking the star player, if you have an elite GM, is that you can then turn that player into other assets on the backend of their tenure. This mitigates some of the benefit of Brad's much longer shelf life.
I think the shift to shorter max length deals, the inclusion of opt outs in most star level players' deals and lessons learned from deals like Garnett/Pierce has pretty much eliminated that premise except in pretty rare cases.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I get the distinct feeling that Danny cut this particular Gordian Knot by grabbing a coach he knew would be great with young guys and drafted and made acquisitions around him with an eye to holistic development and is just growing a juggernaut organically from the ground up.

This is like how Doomsday was evolved to defeat Superman.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,913
I always thought an interesting way to look at it would be to see if you would trade Stevens for "star player" + their coach.

Stevens for Giannis + Budenholzer
Stevens for Davis + Gentry
Stevens for Curry + Kerr
Stevens for Towns + Thibs

And how far down on the top player list do you have to get to factor in the coach
I'd take any of these trades if I ran the Celtics. I would immediately fire Gentry, and take a long look at Paul Pierce as head coach, with two solid assistants, like Bird had in Indiana.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,548
Santa Monica
Brown then admitted to not having spoken with Stevens about his spot in the rotation, but did say that he’s committed to positively impacting the team and helping them continue along with the momentum they’ve built in his absence.

“I haven’t talked to Brad or anybody else, but however we can keep this going—playing the right way and continuing to win—I’m 100 percent for it.”



Why is Brad leaving it up to Jaylen to figure this out? He knows the Boston media is going to hound Brown about starting. Brad's had 5 days since the last game, he should talk to the kid. I'm a huge Brad fan, but he has me scratching my head a few times this season.

https://celticswire.usatoday.com/2018/12/05/jaylen-brown-suggests-that-he-would-willingly-accept-a-bench-role/
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
21,350
Melrose, MA
Not too concerned about this. If Brown;s comment is an accurate indication of where he stands, then everything seems fine.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
Brown then admitted to not having spoken with Stevens about his spot in the rotation, but did say that he’s committed to positively impacting the team and helping them continue along with the momentum they’ve built in his absence.

“I haven’t talked to Brad or anybody else, but however we can keep this going—playing the right way and continuing to win—I’m 100 percent for it.”



Why is Brad leaving it up to Jaylen to figure this out? He knows the Boston media is going to hound Brown about starting. Brad's had 5 days since the last game, he should talk to the kid. I'm a huge Brad fan, but he has me scratching my head a few times this season.

https://celticswire.usatoday.com/2018/12/05/jaylen-brown-suggests-that-he-would-willingly-accept-a-bench-role/
He knows Jaylen better than we do. It's possible he decided that Jaylen needs to feel that he reached the conclusion himself.
 

BillMuellerFanClub

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
1,007
Why is Brad leaving it up to Jaylen to figure this out? He knows the Boston media is going to hound Brown about starting.
Both Danny and Brad have been on the same page in public about the absurdity of the 'starting' designation, and that the combinations used to start games will continue to be varied throughout the rest of the year as they experiment with groupings. These guys should be playing hard and earning a spot closing games. Thus, I think Brad's attention, or lack thereof, to confirming with Jaylen his starting status is a signal of that.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,841
Both Danny and Brad have been on the same page in public about the absurdity of the 'starting' designation, and that the combinations used to start games will continue to be varied throughout the rest of the year as they experiment with groupings. These guys should be playing hard and earning a spot closing games. Thus, I think Brad's attention, or lack thereof, to confirming with Jaylen his starting status is a signal of that.
That doesn't mean the young players and their agents and those chirping in their ear feel it is absurd.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,841
This does a disservice to Jaylen Brown the person. Not your average young guy. I'm not sure he even has an agent.
As Jimmy Butler said about Jaylen in an interview this summer, "Sometimes Jaylen is too smart for his own good."

This comes from someone who knows Jaylen.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
34,990
As Jimmy Butler said about Jaylen in an interview this summer, "Sometimes Jaylen is too smart for his own good."

This comes from someone who knows Jaylen.
What Jimmy thinks is for Jaylen's own good may be completely different from what Jaylen thinks is for Jaylen's own good. IE, starting vs. coming off the bench for the betterment of the team.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,850
around the way
What Jimmy thinks is for Jaylen's own good may be completely different from what Jaylen thinks is for Jaylen's own good. IE, starting vs. coming off the bench for the betterment of the team.
And Butler very recently came out as a bit of a fruit loop in his own Minnesota situation. However much one might appreciate his competitive nature, his behavior was downright weird. I hope that Jaylen is taking Jimmy's feedback with an appropriate amount of salt.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,418
I would hope that Jaylen Brown is smart enough to realize that Jimmy Butler has neither Brown's or the Celtics' interests at heart when he says things.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,841
What Jimmy thinks is for Jaylen's own good may be completely different from what Jaylen thinks is for Jaylen's own good. IE, starting vs. coming off the bench for the betterment of the team.
You don't think it is in Jaylen's best interest to be starting and putting up numbers compared to the alternatives mentioned? If Jaylen feels otherwise then he better hurry up and hire representation to properly guide him.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,548
Santa Monica
Both Danny and Brad have been on the same page in public about the absurdity of the 'starting' designation, and that the combinations used to start games will continue to be varied throughout the rest of the year as they experiment with groupings. These guys should be playing hard and earning a spot closing games. Thus, I think Brad's attention, or lack thereof, to confirming with Jaylen his starting status is a signal of that.
Agreed Danny and Brad may feel "who starts" is absurd but the Media will make it an issue and hound Jaylen. And HRB makes a good point about his reps/advisors having Jaylen's ear.

Its been forever since the Celtics have played and maybe Brad or an Asst Coach could have had a 5-minute talk with Jaylen. Jeesh. Something like "we're going to slowly work you back from the bench to see how your back reacts OR just come off the bench and dominate as Gordon did recently OR help us win with the 2nd rotation OR we plan on starting you in a few weeks OR whatever..." but nothing???

Sorry but I expect some communication between a key young player/starter that was clearly struggling with his game/confidence and the coaching staff (BTW Jaylen made a point to say he didn't hear from "Brad or anybody else")
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
1,453
You don't think it is in Jaylen's best interest to be starting and putting up numbers compared to the alternatives mentioned? If Jaylen feels otherwise then he better hurry up and hire representation to properly guide him.
If the guys writing checks are doing it on the basis of players "putting up numbers", then they ought to be fired.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,841
If the guys writing checks are doing it on the basis of players "putting up numbers", then they ought to be fired.
I don't even know where to begin with this. If Jaylen heads into FA as a reserve complementary player he (or hopefully for him he'll have an agent by then) will bring to the negotiating table evidence that he's......a reserve complementary player and he'll be paid accordingly using similar comps. If he starts and "puts up numbers" he'll bring to the table evidence that he's a starter in this league capable of putting up numbers......and be paid accordingly using similar comps. Who gets paid in this league......reserve complementary players or starters who put up numbers?

Having said that, he looked great tonight even though it was against the Knicks in a 20+ win that was a double digit game throughout.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,406
I don't even know where to begin with this. If Jaylen heads into FA as a reserve complementary player he (or hopefully for him he'll have an agent by then) will bring to the negotiating table evidence that he's......a reserve complementary player and he'll be paid accordingly using similar comps. If he starts and "puts up numbers" he'll bring to the table evidence that he's a starter in this league capable of putting up numbers......and be paid accordingly using similar comps. Who gets paid in this league......reserve complementary players or starters who put up numbers?

Having said that, he looked great tonight even though it was against the Knicks in a 20+ win that was a double digit game throughout.
Do you really believe that a player like Brown will be penalized for "reserve complimentary numbers" versus "starter numbers" in today's NBA? Maybe 20 years ago but I think there are enough shrewd NBA front-offices who would jump at a chance to add a potential plus three-and-D wing with upside to their roster and would pay a premium to do so. Paying players for what they did in the past is bad business in any sport but most NBA teams have shed those sorts of GMs anyhow.

Brown is going to have a healthy market regardless of how his numbers look.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,167
Do you really believe that a player like Brown will be penalized for "reserve complimentary numbers" versus "starter numbers" in today's NBA? Maybe 20 years ago but I think there are enough shrewd NBA front-offices who would jump at a chance to add a potential plus three-and-D wing with upside to their roster and would pay a premium to do so. Paying players for what they did in the past is bad business in any sport but most NBA teams have shed those sorts of GMs anyhow.

Brown is going to have a healthy market regardless of how his numbers look.
Brown is going to have a healthy market. If he spends the next 2 years coming off the bench (note: I don’t believe this will happen), I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that he could lose some money on his next deal.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,223
Saint Paul, MN
He will have a healthy market, but he would stand a far greater chance of fetching more money if he was putting up 20 points as a starter than 12 as a reserve. Doesn't mean that he couldn't get paid as a reserve, but the chances are much better of grabbing a max offer if he had already shown his starter potential
 

HowBoutDemSox

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2009
3,904
Harden started all of seven games in three years with OKC, that didn’t stop Morey from trading for him and signing him to an $80 million extension. Brown isn’t Harden, but simply coming off the bench isn’t going to be held against him if he’s showing his true talent out there.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,406
Harden started all of seven games in three years with OKC, that didn’t stop Morey from trading for him and signing him to an $80 million extension. Brown isn’t Harden, but simply coming off the bench isn’t going to be held against him if he’s showing his true talent out there.
Agreed. The point is that Brown is a solid defender who can create for himself on occasion and has shown flashes of being a decent shooter from behind the arc. However he is a relatively poor FT shooter and his overall offensive game has some glaring holes. Regardless of whether he starts or comes off the bench, he is going to need to hit his open looks from deep at a consistent level and be able to improve his midrange game to increase his value. Until that happens, his market is going to be good but the upside is limited, starter or not.
 

The Social Chair

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 17, 2010
2,713
How do we rate Stevens performance so far? The defense is still great. The offense is statistically performing well but seems inconsistent quarter to quarter. His rotations leave players without defined roles.

Tatum and Rozier have regressed this year, and Brown hasn't improved from last year.

Kyrie, Morris, and Smart on the other hand are having career years.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
How do we rate Stevens performance so far? The defense is still great. The offense is statistically performing well but seems inconsistent quarter to quarter. His rotations leave players without defined roles.

Tatum and Rozier have regressed this year, and Brown hasn't improved from last year.

Kyrie, Morris, and Smart on the other hand are having career years.
I'll nitpick a bit on the defense: it's good, but it should be a lot better with the personnel, and they've been more prone to horrible defensive quarters than to horrible offensive quarters.

I wasn't happy with Brad early on, but he has a really tough assignment this year. The franchise is in a holding pattern on multiple fronts:
- Kyrie's free agency: until he's actually signed, they can't give up Rozier's RFA rights.
- Rozier's minutes/role: related to the above, Rozier is redundant with Kyrie and Smart on the team, but they can't deal him until the Kyrie FA resolves.
- Anthony Davis: Danny can't make any move that gives up assets or cleans up the roster redundancies, because the high chance of getting AD and having an insta-dynasty is so much higher than the chance of beating GSW this year.
- Getting the most out of Hayward: if you have a guy making $30M with his upside, you have to give him minutes, even if he's having to work back into being himself. This is just life in the NBA.

For the development of Brown and Tatum: Tatum is the real black mark on Brad's record this year. Brown has been good and getting better since the slow start, and he's been put in a shitty position wrt role because of the above-mentioned constraints. Tatum just looks really out of sorts on the offensive end, and still hasn't been able to focus on getting to the rim consistently.

I'd give Brad a B- or so this year, but once the minutes/role/asset constraints disappear in the playoffs, he could bump that up a lot. Most of the stuff we're frustrated with relates to things outside his control.

Besides Tatum, I think the one area he could improve is designing the offense to really maximize Kyrie's 32-36 minutes. He did a lot more to build the entire system around IT in 2016-2017, and if you have a top-5 scorer in the league, you're leaving a lot on the table if you don't make your system revolve around him. To Brad's credit though, he's been moving in that direction recently.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,841
The strong willed players caught in the crunch are, not so surprisingly, the veterans who are the one succeeding......Morris and Smart. The ones struggling are the younger players who have never faced a minutes crunch since they've felt deserving of larger roles......Tatum/Jaylen at times, and Rozier. This is on the player and not Brad. If he's taking criticism for Tatum not making a leap he should be taking bows for the career year out of Morris and the shot selection of Smart. I'd prefer giving the credit to Morris and Smart as they are the ones improving their games and not giving any sort of coaching dissatisfaction to Tatum for not doing so.

This was as challenging a coaching job in the league this year and the team not only hasn't imploded on the floor with only so many balls and minutes to go around but has shown promise at times of what this team will look like in the spring. I have Brad at a B+ which is where I'd also have had him in prior years.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
...This is on the player and not Brad. If he's taking criticism for Tatum not making a leap he should be taking bows for the career year out of Morris and the shot selection of Smart. I'd prefer giving the credit to Morris and Smart as they are the ones improving their games and not giving any sort of coaching dissatisfaction to Tatum for not doing so.
...
This was as challenging a coaching job in the league this year and the team not only hasn't imploded on the floor with only so many balls and minutes to go around but has shown promise at times of what this team will look like in the spring. I have Brad at a B+ which is where I'd also have had him in prior years.
Fair points, and I should upgrade my Brad grade. In November, when the public sniping started, I honestly thought that the team would implode to the point of somebody getting traded just to keep Kyrie happy.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,548
Santa Monica
2018-19 grade: B+ seems fair for the season so far... B (adjusted after another poor performance from Brad in a back-to-back)

Before this season I had Brad as an A+ coach, slightly behind Pop and Coach K. There isn't a coach in the game I'd switch with...

The bad:
1. Brad has overused Al at the 5 and underused AB. Everyone knows my stance here with the rotation. Brad is in the process of correcting that misstep which will lead to less reliance on small ball lineups.
2. I wish Brad would work the refs a little more early in games.
3. Brad was a little slow on using TOs to stop the momentum of opponents earlier in the season. But he has been better of late using TOs
4. I'd like to see him start scheduling rest for Al and Gordon more often ala POP. It would open up playing time for others. I believe we'll start seeing that soon (like tonight).

The good:
1. Brad quickly changed the starting rotation after 15-20 games. He smartly went with stronger, more physical role players in MaMo/Smart over Brown/Hayward.
2. Brad puts the ball in Kyrie's hands during crunch time, no brainer, but Brad doesn't try to overcoach here.
3. While there has been some bickering amongst the players, there have been ZERO complaints by the players about the coach. Brad does an excellent job of focusing on the task at hand and not getting caught up in the drama.

Brad's ultimate grade this season will be pass/fail. Anything short of making the Finals (with a healthy squad) will be a fail. But once again I'm not trading him for Pop, Coach K or any other coach for that matter.
 
Last edited:

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
2,223
Saint Paul, MN
I am not sure how much blame falls on Stevens, but man he sure does seem to be getting way too much of a pass with how shitty this team has been. At some point he's gotta either drastically switch something up or take a decent amount of heat for how this season is going.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
I am not sure how much blame falls on Stevens, but man he sure does seem to be getting way too much of a pass with how shitty this team has been. At some point he's gotta either drastically switch something up or take a decent amount of heat for how this season is going.
I agree that he's lost some of his shine this year, particularly wrt managing egos.

That said, Danny put him in a really, really shitty spot by building a roster completely focused on assets, rather than players who complement each other. Danny then basically put the franchise into a holding pattern for AD, while everything burns around that.

However, if the #1 job of a top-level NBA coach is managing egos and getting cohesion from talented teams, Brad’s performance this year hasn’t inspired tons of confidence.
 
Last edited:

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
1,453
I agree that he's lost some of his shine this year, particularly wrt managing egos.

That said, Danny put him in a really, really shitty spot by building a roster completely focused on assets, rather than players who complement each other. Danny then basically put the franchise into a holding pattern for AD, while everything burns around that.

However, if the #1 job of a top-level NBA coach is managing egos and getting cohesion from talented teams, Brad’s performance this year hasn’t inspired tons of confidence.
I just don't buy that "roster construction" is the problem here. Would we be better off with less talented players? We've got bigs, swings, wings and handlers and are deep at each slot. We've got guys focused on defending. The problem is they're not playing together. That's on the players first and the coach second.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,841
I just don't buy that "roster construction" is the problem here. Would we be better off with less talented players? We've got bigs, swings, wings and handlers and are deep at each slot. We've got guys focused on defending. The problem is they're not playing together. That's on the players first and the coach second.
We would be better with a different skillset of players who aren't primarily iso players who require the ball in their hands. Maybe we would be "less talented" but I feel that if we had DeMarre Carroll and DJ Augustin replace Tatum and Rozier this season we would be a better "team" than we are right now. To me, that is a roster construction problem due to the redundancy of the team Ainge put together while accumulating assets for an AD-trade.

Ainge has never been about the short team when building this team so it may all work out with AD and Kyrie...….it just won't happen this year which has always been the likely outcome for a trade. I stand by my position to start the season that this is a very difficult group for a young coach like Stevens to coach successfully.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
I just don't buy that "roster construction" is the problem here. Would we be better off with less talented players? We've got bigs, swings, wings and handlers and are deep at each slot. We've got guys focused on defending. The problem is they're not playing together. That's on the players first and the coach second.
This isn't baseball. Specifics of how players fit together (and as a result, egos), matter a LOT. Multiple guys in contract years (Rozier and Morris), two guys who had a taste of being the man at the highest level (Tatum and Brown), a former star who's figuring out what he is now (Hayward), and Kyrie, all put together, is a really tough dynamic to navigate.

Also worth acknowledging that for as much credit as he gets, Kerr should probably get more for how well GSW meshed everything together with Durant, and also stayed the course during his free agency drama this year.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,561
I just don't buy that "roster construction" is the problem here. Would we be better off with less talented players? We've got bigs, swings, wings and handlers and are deep at each slot. We've got guys focused on defending. The problem is they're not playing together. That's on the players first and the coach second.
I look at it a bit differently than HRB. It's not "roster construction" per se; it's the fact that young players in the NBA are inconsistent because they are trying to figure out what they can and cannot do.

With all of the criticism that Brad gets, it's also true that he is not coaching to win every game and I'm sure he sees a good part of his job to try to help the development of the young guys - JB, JT, TR, and MS - even if that includes watching JT hoist up contested 3s after no ball movement and or watch JB throw away the ball after leading the break (for example).

If DA wanted to maximize the chances of winning this year, he would have gone out and traded some assets for veterans who know what they can do and do it well. That certainly would have been limiting to the Cs future though and I for one am glad he did not do it.

Assuming RealGM is correct, the Cs are tied with NOP for the 10th youngest team in the NBA (26.0). The other playoff teams in this list are DEN (4th, 24.7); POR (6th; 25.2); and BRK (7th; 25.5). Maybe some people are giving DEN a shot but I think the majority of folks don't believe that DEN, POR, or BRK have a shot at winning the championship.

BTW, the other six youngest teams are: Atlanta Hawks; Sacramento Kings; Orlando Magic; Phoenix Suns; Chicago Bulls; and New York Knicks.

On the flip side, HOU (28.9) is the oldest team in the league; GSW is 4th (27.8); MIL is 6th (27.4); and TOR is 7th (27.3). The other two teams talked about in championship terms is PHI (15th; 26.5) and OKC + IND (tied for 13th; 26.4).
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
7,946
That said, Danny put him in a really, really shitty spot by building a roster completely focused on assets, rather than players who complement each other. Danny then basically put the franchise into a holding pattern for AD, while everything burns around that.
What are you talking about? We've got exactly the same rotation that went to the ECF last year, plus two all-stars (or, well, one all-star and one former all-star). They have another year of experience in the league and with playing with each other. We're on a .594 W% (projects to 49 wins) after landing a .671 W% (55-27) last year with zero Hayward and only 60 games of Kyrie.

I don't see how you could possibly blame Danny for the team being worse than last year; at most, you can blame him for not using his assets to make some decisive improvements. But, like, a decisive improvement would need to be adding a top-10 player, and most of them are not available, and he's all-in on one of the few who is.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
4,441
Kiev, Ukraine
What are you talking about? We've got exactly the same rotation that went to the ECF last year, plus two all-stars (or, well, one all-star and one former all-star). They have another year of experience in the league and with playing with each other. We're on a .594 W% (projects to 49 wins) after landing a .671 W% (55-27) last year with zero Hayward and only 60 games of Kyrie.

I don't see how you could possibly blame Danny for the team being worse than last year; at most, you can blame him for not using his assets to make some decisive improvements. But, like, a decisive improvement would need to be adding a top-10 player, and most of them are not available, and he's all-in on one of the few who is.
I thought that's how it would work too. But it was pretty obvious early in the season that things weren't working that way, and that in some ways the ECF was something of a bug when we thought it would be a feature: Rozier started getting outside his role and never really found a groove, Tatum was uncertain, and Brown's development has REALLY been hurt by not having the ball as much. Add in the issues with Hayward taking minutes but not being in form, and you have a recipe for discontent.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,406
If we are criticizing Stevens - and to be crystal clear, its entirely fair to do so - Ainge cannot be spared here.

Stevens is his handpicked coach with what appears to be a longterm commitment and this is Ainge's roster. Its also hard to imagine that Stevens is managing the team without significant input from Ainge.

So either Ainge is comfortable with the process or is asleep at the switch given how the team has struggled in spots this year.

In short, if we are saying Stevens isn't the right fit for this team, perhaps we ought to consider whether Ainge is the right guy to build the roster.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
7,946
In short, if we are saying Stevens isn't the right fit for this team, perhaps we ought to consider whether Ainge is the right guy to build the roster.
I'm hearing a lot more criticism of his moves than I am a declaration that he's not the right guy to build for the future.

Bill Belichick has made some mistakes too. Alex Cora, Terry Francona have. Criticizing those mistakes is a very different level of statement than saying they are not fit for their jobs.

Basically, nobody is saying the bolded in this thread, from what I've read. Although BenHogan might get there if Baynes isn't played more :)