What's Up, Doc?

[Isaac]

All those who dearly love the NBA have been forced to become Celtics and Lakers fans over the past two weeks for the simple reason that a Pistons-Spurs finals is too painful to even contemplate. And this is what makes the unbelievable cluelessness of Celtics coach Doc Rivers a huge, huge problem. Last night he insisted on playing veteran point guard Sam Cassell for 17 minutes, with predictable results (no points and no assists). Normally I could let this pass without comment, but the possibility of Detroit once again playing into June is a threat to decent Americans everywhere.

If you aren't a serious NBA fan, but have tuned into any Boston games, you probably found Rivers to be a likable figure. Unlike most coaches he will smile and display excitement, and even seems to have a rapport with his players. But his coaching in the playoffs has been absolutely dreadful (for the fullest take on this see Bill Simmons).

As a friend put it (in jest) this morning, "Don’t you think the NBA has to get involved at this point?"

Comments

I don't know. I find it kind of amusing. It's not as if the Celtics just hired him this year so they have been taken by surprise. He's been there, what, 4 years? He's just really good with management and the media. It just goes to show you that making your boss happy is different than doing your job well.

Posted by mpowell | May 27, 2008 12:58 PM

Thank you. And because every color commentator is either a former coach or wants to be a coach, nobody will ever criticize the coaches. Jeff Van Gundy, the best NBA color man I've ever seen, refuses to even mildly criticize Doc. Every once in a while he'll say, "I don't like the squad the Celtics have out there -- where's the offense supposed to come from?", but 5 minutes later he's talking about what a great coach Doc Rivers is.

Posted by too many steves | May 27, 2008 12:59 PM

Oh cry me a river. The Celtics weren't ready for this. Go pick up NBA Jam if you need that slamma jamma in yo face action.

Posted by freddiemac | May 27, 2008 1:13 PM

With regard to Sam Cassell, he is one of those guys who never met a shot he didn't like. Confidence is good, but Cassell's blue shifted his confidence into another space time continuum.

Your description of him being a point guard is not accurate. A point guard will set up and initiate the play and view himself as one of the options. Cassell views himself as option number one. I couldn't believe it when Boston traded for him. I haven't seen that many games with him in the Boston lineup, but of the games I've seen, Cassell has put up more bricks than a card carrying member of the bricklayer's union.

His typical possession starts with him at the point, watching as the center comes out to set a screen, watch as the small forward curls under the basket and then when all possible rebounders are out of the picture, hoisting up a three. Cassell doesn't watch the power forward, because he isn't in to shoot and the shooting guard is there to act as a decoy.

Doc Rivers is a passable coach. He has a lot of egos on the bench that need to be massaged. Playing Cassell sometimes will keep Cassell in the game enough so that he can contribute on the off chance that starts to hit something other than air.

Posted by dan robinson | May 27, 2008 1:14 PM

The announcers did criticize Saunders for the highly questionable decision to play Theo Ratliff over Maxiell when Rasheed Wallace picked up his fourth foul, but not a word about Cassell's extended minutes. And it wasn't just that Cassell utterly failed to contribute offensively (while jacking up his typical hasty shots and killing their offensive rhythm); Billups, on one leg, was driving past him whenever he felt like it. What made the decision all the more bizarre was that Doc did play House in the first two games of the series, and House did fairly well.

Watching Saunders and Rivers coach against each other is like watching blind men play darts.

I have to say, though, that I would be perfectly fine with a Detroit/LA Finals, and I think a Boston/San Antonio Finals would be deeply boring. In other words, I don't think it matters who wins the East, it's up to LA to ensure an interesting Finals either way.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 27, 2008 1:14 PM

Any decent fan outside of New England detests Boston in every sport. We love Doc Rivers.

Posted by eriks | May 27, 2008 1:14 PM

With regard to Sam Cassell, he is one of those guys who never met a shot he didn't like. Confidence is good, but Cassell's blue shifted his confidence into another space time continuum.

Your description of him being a point guard is not accurate. A point guard will set up and initiate the play and view himself as one of the options. Cassell views himself as option number one. I couldn't believe it when Boston traded for him. I haven't seen that many games with him in the Boston lineup, but of the games I've seen, Cassell has put up more bricks than a card carrying member of the bricklayer's union.

His typical possession starts with him at the point, watching as the center comes out to set a screen, watch as the small forward curls under the basket and then when all possible rebounders are out of the picture, hoisting up a three. Cassell doesn't watch the power forward, because he isn't in to shoot and the shooting guard is there to act as a decoy.

Doc Rivers is a passable coach. He has a lot of egos on the bench that need to be massaged. Playing Cassell sometimes will keep Cassell in the game enough so that he can contribute on the off chance that starts to hit something other than air.

Posted by dan robinson | May 27, 2008 1:17 PM

All those who dearly love the NBA have been forced to become Celtics and Lakers fans over the past two weeks for the simple reason that a Pistons-Spurs finals is too painful to even contemplate.

Please. A Celtics-Lakers final is far more painful.

Posted by Mike T | May 27, 2008 1:20 PM

With regard to Sam Cassell, he is one of those guys who never met a shot he didn't like. Confidence is good, but Cassell's blue shifted his confidence into another space time continuum.

Your description of him being a point guard is not accurate. A point guard will set up and initiate the play and view himself as one of the options. Cassell views himself as option number one. I couldn't believe it when Boston traded for him. I haven't seen that many games with him in the Boston lineup, but of the games I've seen, Cassell has put up more bricks than a card carrying member of the bricklayer's union.

His typical possession starts with him at the point, watching as the center comes out to set a screen, watch as the small forward curls under the basket and then when all possible rebounders are out of the picture, hoisting up a three. Cassell doesn't watch the power forward, because he isn't in to shoot and the shooting guard is there to act as a decoy.

Doc Rivers is a passable coach. He has a lot of egos on the bench that need to be massaged. Playing Cassell sometimes will keep Cassell in the game enough so that he can contribute on the off chance that starts to hit something other than air.

Posted by dan robinson | May 27, 2008 1:21 PM

A Celtics-Spurs final would be fine by me. Garnett on Duncan is always an interesting matchup.

Posted by Asher | May 27, 2008 1:22 PM

I get the feeling y'all aren't really basketball aficionados.

Rivers has his problems, but he's been astonishingly good with a team whose best shooter can't shoot, whose best offensive player goes through repeated stretches of clod-dom, with Rondo very young and the rest not all that good. Cassell didn't cost the Celtics anything last night -- they didn't have anything.

Posted by david | May 27, 2008 1:22 PM

I get the feeling y'all aren't really basketball aficionados.

Rivers has his problems, but he's been astonishingly good with a team whose best shooter can't shoot, whose best offensive player goes through repeated stretches of clod-dom, with Rondo very young and the rest not all that good. Cassell didn't cost the Celtics anything last night -- they didn't have anything.

This is the first I have ever heard of any basketball afficionado (self-proclaimed or not) professing support for Rivers.

Posted by mpowell | May 27, 2008 1:29 PM

I get the feeling y'all aren't really basketball aficionados.

Rivers has his problems, but he's been astonishingly good with a team whose best shooter can't shoot, whose best offensive player goes through repeated stretches of clod-dom, with Rondo very young and the rest not all that good. Cassell didn't cost the Celtics anything last night -- they didn't have anything.

This is the first I have ever heard of any basketball afficionado (self-proclaimed or not) professing support for Rivers.

Posted by mpowell | May 27, 2008 1:31 PM

What sort of "basketball aficianado" thinks giving 17 minutes to a cipher doesn't cost you anything? The game was tight up until the last few minutes.

Rivers is the Antiauerbach. I still think the Celtics will win this series, but it will be despite Rivers.

And if the Celtics manage to ring up #17 I hope all of you pathetically jealous Boston-haters develop ulcerous hemorrhoids over the whole thing. Especially if you're Repiglicans.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 27, 2008 1:32 PM

"Threat to decent Americans everywhere?" Ha! Any serious NBA fan know the finals were played between Phoenix and San Antonio last year and are either going on right now or ended last week in New Orleans. Boston had the best record in the NBA in this regular season. Dallas did last year.
Detroit and Boston are contending for the right to lay down nest round.

Posted by ricky | May 27, 2008 1:32 PM

Gotta disagree on this one. I am certainly rooting for the Pistons. I don't think a Detroit/LA series would be boring in the least. I think the Lakers would beat the Celtics in 4 or 5, but I could see the Pistons taking it to 7 games. I hate watching the Celtics, and haven't seen a coach more overmatched since Mike Brown in last year's playoffs. Unfortunately for Doc Rivers, he doesn't have Lebron on his team.

Posted by Stacy | May 27, 2008 1:33 PM

"Threat to decent Americans everywhere?" Ha! Any serious NBA fan know the finals were played between Phoenix and San Antonio last year and are either going on right now or ended last week in New Orleans. Boston had the best record in the NBA in this regular season. Dallas did last year.
Detroit and Boston are contending for the right to lay down next round.

Posted by ricky | May 27, 2008 1:35 PM

Has Rivers made some mistakes this postseason? Yes. However, it's not like he was with his hair or picking daisies off-court all season. This is the first year the core of the squad has played together and they dominated the regular season. Despite all of his mistakes, they're still in the playoffs.

Posted by Reality Man | May 27, 2008 1:36 PM

"...he's been astonishingly good with a team whose best shooter can't shoot, whose best offensive player goes through repeated stretches of clod-dom, with Rondo very young and the rest not all that good."

I've tried parsing this sentence a couple of times, and it seems that "the rest" must include either Kevin Garnett or Paul Pierce, both of whom are more than good. James Posey has been terrific. And Rondo, though inconsistent, has also frequently been good during the playoffs. Perkins has had his moments. Leon Powe, who was terrific during the regular season, has lately been benched, apparently for some defensive lapses (fine in principle, but Doc seems to be taking that way too far).

In other words, I'm with Isaac-- and most other "basketball aficionados."

Posted by Red | May 27, 2008 1:46 PM

isaac, even though my son's name is isaac, i have to say that you have lost me altogether: there is nothing wrong with a pistons-spurs finals if you like basketball.

if you're a hyperactive superstar junkie who thinks the peak of basketball history was "come fly with me," then i can see why you have a problem with pistons-spurs, but that's a different story.

in san antonio and detroit, you have teams built around defense, ball movement, and rebounding: pretty unbasketball stuff....

Posted by howard | May 27, 2008 1:47 PM

Nice to see that even people in the non-sports world are aware of this budding catastrophe. David Stern has to be positively apoplectic furiously making calls to Joey Crawford. I mean, I'd say a Spurs-Pistons series has an 80 percent chance to set a new record for lowest rated finals ever. (breaking the current record held by... THE SPURS!)

How is it that everyone in the building knows that Cassell is a train wreck and doc doesn't. He forces the celtic to double team his man because he can't play defense, he can't handle the ball especially well, and he's shooting like 20% in the playoffs. What does he give you that eddie house doesn't at this point. Especially with a moribund offense like last night. House gives you spacing, (pierce can bring the ball up) energy, and excellent shooting. And for that matter, where have all of Leon Powe's minutes gone. He seemed to be to be better than perkins in all phases of the game. And he always gets you 10 points on hustle and garbage.

In the west I remain cautiously optimistic that the Lakers will end our long national nightmare.

Posted by pb01 | May 27, 2008 1:49 PM

I agree with Antid Oto that the Lakers are the key ingredient to an entertaining finals. If you think that Boston is somehow more fun to watch than Detroit, I don't see it. Maybe you're just a Boston fan (I am a Pistons fan). In fact, Boston and Detroit play very similar games, and are strongest when their defense gets cranked up, as was the case in both of Boston's game 7 wins. Games 3 and 4 of the Pistons/Celts series were mirror images of each other, with the winning team shutting down the other. Maybe it was just poor shooting by first Detroit then Boston, but I think defense explains it.

I agree with you on the Sam Cassell issue. I have been so impressed with Rondo, and it's a relief when he's out of the game. It's like Rivers has to prove he was right to acquire Cassell earlier in the year so he plays him. But it is hurting the Celtics. I really think Boston has the better players and should win this, but who knows? I'm just rooting for the Lakers over San Antonio, as I think LA has a really interesting team with all those role players coming off the bench, and Kobe playing spectacularly.

Posted by DH in DC | May 27, 2008 1:49 PM

The sudden emergence of Davis over Powe is what truly mystifies me, although I agree with House over Cassell at this point as well.

Posted by Andruw | May 27, 2008 1:52 PM

Well, Boston's two best players are better than Detroit's two best players. But the 3rd-7th best players on Detroit are WAY better than the players on Boston. Its not even close. I think Detroit wins this in 7...

Posted by Stacyq | May 27, 2008 1:53 PM

One never roots for the Lakers. One never roots for the Celtics, unless they are playing the Lakers. Spurs-Pistons is fine with me.

Posted by Njorl | May 27, 2008 1:54 PM

Ugh, you aren't speaking for NBA aficionados you are speaking for the punditocracy living in the 80s. Kobe KG would make me puke. It'll probably be a ratings success, but that hardly makes it something NBA aficionados want.

Posted by crack | May 27, 2008 2:00 PM

pb01: just for the record, cassell is shooting 32.9% for the playoffs.

i haven't watched enough celts-pistons to have an opinion about whether rivers is overplaying cassell; i'll simply note (and i'm not especially a fan of individual +/- numbers, but they're out there), that casell's was 0 yesterday, while rondo's was -14....

Posted by howard | May 27, 2008 2:00 PM

Doc Rivers didn't acquire Sam Cassell, Danny Ainge did, so I highly doubt Doc thinks he has an obligation to play him. Doc plays Sam because Sam can handle the ball and the other backup point guard Eddie House simply can't handle the ball safely under the pressure that Detroit backup Lindsay Hunter puts on him.

Doc mismanaged the points more against Atlanta and Cleveland, where those teams lack of great point guard play (especially on D) meant House would unlikely see big time pressure and so wouldn't hurt the C's. But against Detroit, House is a turnover machine and can't be trusted to bring the ball up court.

Sam Cassell was picked up (as a free agent, he wasn't traded for) for the specific purpose of breaking the Lindsay Hunter pressure against Detroit. Period. The Celtics needed a second point guard, and Sam was the best available.

So while I'll defend Doc on the Sam point (since Doc has no other real options vs. Detroit), overall I'm on the "Doc sucks" side of the argument. He's certainly a nice guy, and I have no doubt his players like and play hard for him. But the guy is a lightweight coach, over his head right now. If it wasn't for Tom Thibideau, they'd never be here - and if they lose, Celtics fans should at least be able to hope that Doc gets fired in the loss's wake and Thibideau hired to replace him.

Lakers certainly liven up the finals - and Boston v LA would be the ultimate finals in years.

Boston beats Lakers in 6.

Posted by The Foulness | May 27, 2008 2:03 PM

Doc Rivers is far from a great coach, but you can't hang last night's loss on his decision to play Sam Cassell. It was more a case of, "we won one in Detroit, mission accomplished, let's go back home and hold serve."

The above poster who said the game was tight until the end must have been watching a different game.

Posted by dango | May 27, 2008 2:05 PM

I've always been a Lakers-hater, but they're playing beautifully this year. Wonderful ball movement, way better than the Spurs or Pistons. howard, give 'em a chance.

Posted by too many steves | May 27, 2008 2:05 PM

I think Crack is correct. The LA/Boston matchup is only preferred if you are feeling nostalgic or if you don't follow the NBA very well, and only want to watch the big stars. Sometimes those two groups are one in the same.

Posted by Stacy | May 27, 2008 2:06 PM

Cassell is 38 years old, fer cryin' out loud, and he always had his limitations, even when he was young! Why on earth did Ainge have any expectations he could meaningfully contribute?

If the Celtics lose this series the anti-Garnett brigade will be out in force, pretending that a team consisting of KG, Pierce, and the rest of these the players is some sort of great roster. It's not.

Posted by Will Allen | May 27, 2008 2:09 PM

A few words in defense of Doc Rivers:

The first regular season Detroit-Boston game this year was in Boston, but was won by Detroit. A key turning point in that game was a stretch in the second half when Eddie House was in the game. House isn't a good ball-handler. The Pistons trapped him all over the floor, causing some turnovers and generally gumming up the Celtics offense. I think that is why Rivers has been reluctant to go to House as Rondo's backup in this series, and the playoffs in general.

During the playoffs Boston has looked nothing like the Celtics team of the regular season, and the reasons are manifest: (i) Ray Allen is having a total meltdown. He has lost his confidence and is reluctant to shoot, and when he does shoot, the shots aren't falling. He's killing them. And (ii), Rivers's hall of fame forward, number 31 all time on the NBA career scoring list, refuses to take over the game offensively during crunch time. So its not surprising that Rivers would look to a no-conscience gunner like Cassell to provide some spark to an offense that was miserable last night. What is he going to do when two of his big three are - not to put too fine a point on it - choking.

Nevertheless, I blame Rivers for his clear preference for veterans, and his failure to get the most out of the few younger players they have. The Celtics are an old team. They have played two seven game series, and are now in another grueling series against a very tough defensive team. They're using a veteran rotation with Allen, Pierce, Garnett, Posey, and sometimes Cassell. I think they're worn out.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 27, 2008 2:10 PM

Will, I know you are a big KG defender, and your reasons are very valid. I'm not sure if you are a Boston fan or not, but your point is one that I find very curious. During the beginning of the season, Boston fans were very defensive and LOVED talking about how great of a team it was. They defended the lack of depth by talking about the big three and the maturity of Rondo. They seemed right. The team went on to win 63 games, I believe. Now, with their season appearing to be in peril, they have taken to claiming that Boston really never had that great of a team to begin with. Again, I'm not saying you fall in this group, but I have seen quite a bit of it.

Posted by Stacy | May 27, 2008 2:16 PM

One never roots for the Lakers. One never roots for the Celtics, unless they are playing the Lakers.

That's why the inevitable double regular season/finals MVP will be so sweet this year.

Hopefully Fisher and Odom bounce back tonight and they take game 4.

Posted by SoCalJustice | May 27, 2008 2:19 PM

too many steves, honest, i don't hate the lakers! (hell, i still remember coach jackson as a knick, and he was a favorite of mine back then; i still regret that the knicks didn't roll the dice and hire him when the bulls did, although of course, patrick ewing wasn't exactly a triangle-type player.) if we end up with lakers-celts, that's fine with me, and i've been impressed how rapidly gasol has fit in with the team.

but when people start saying it's gotta be lakers-celts or it's just gonna be so boring and no one will watch, it's clear that they are superstar groupies, not basketball fans (not that they're wrong about the tv ratings, but the question was whether those who "dearly love" the nba should favor lakers-celts, not whether the casual fan would rather watch lakers-celts).

Posted by howard | May 27, 2008 2:21 PM

I think Crack is correct. The LA/Boston matchup is only preferred if you are feeling nostalgic or if you don't follow the NBA very well, and only want to watch the big stars.

Um, no. You just have to be sober.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 27, 2008 2:21 PM

SCMT, so you have to be drunk, high, or deep inside a K-hole to prefer the Pistons over the Celtics? A Lakers-Celtics final wouldn't be competitive. A Lakers-Pistons would be. Jackson would coach circles around Doc Rivers and the Lakers depth would end that series in 5 games. Tops.

Posted by Stacy | May 27, 2008 2:27 PM

A Lakers-Celtics final wouldn't be competitive. A Lakers-Pistons would be. Jackson would coach circles around Doc Rivers and the Lakers depth would end that series in 5 games. Tops.

No, that seems fair. I almost included a sentence indicating that it was hard to pick a team to prefer in the East because neither was very attractive.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 27, 2008 2:30 PM

Neither LA nor Boston strike me as being particularly champion-like at this point, primarily because they are built around two guys whose basketball minds seem more centered on the marketing department than the gym. Both KG and Kobe have in the past been alternatingly pushed on us by the NBA as the next big thing and at this point, as talented as they may still be, both still seem hollow and stale and I think this reflects on their respective teams. I think a Boston-LA series would ultimately fall flat and would feel about as exciting as seeing the prom king and queen chosen. Hell, the All-Star game is a better value if that's your taste.

Rail against it all you want, but the inheritors of the "team" qualities of the old Lakers and Celtics are in San Antonio and Detroit.

Posted by Condor | May 27, 2008 2:36 PM

but the inheritors of the "team" qualities of the old Lakers and Celtics are in San Antonio and Detroit.

Go look at the pace statistics and get back to us.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 27, 2008 2:40 PM

LA and Bosten "are built around two guys whose basketball minds seem more centered on the marketing department than the gym"? That's insane, especially in reference to KG. Pretty much anyone who's ever met him says he's the hardest worker of any superstar they've ever seen. Kobe has a similar reputation, but he's also a ball hog sometimes, so maybe you're closer to right about him.

Posted by too many steves | May 27, 2008 2:43 PM

Condor,
I agree with your very last statement, but to call Kobe and KG "hallow and stale" doesn't make any sense to me. In what way are they hallow and stale? Kobe make take too many shots for some people's taste, but he has become great at getting his teammates involved. I don't even know where to begin in regards to KG. He may be a lot of things, but to call him hallow or stale is silly.

Posted by Ted2 | May 27, 2008 2:43 PM

It seems as though there are two different Celtics teams: I like the one with KG anchoring a stingy defense, Pierce going off for 30+ points, and the underrated Rondo taking advantage when other teams don't respect him. But the team with Cassell and Allen throwing bricks, and Pierce taking 1 shot in the first half is uninspiring to say the least.

Rivers has made some baffling decisions, but that doesn't go all the way to explain why Pierce and Allen have gone invisible for most of the road games (whereas KG has been consistently excellent, while never quite dominating).

Posted by Richard Cownie | May 27, 2008 2:44 PM

It seems as though there are two different Celtics teams: I like the one with KG anchoring a stingy defense, Pierce going off for 30+ points, and the underrated Rondo taking advantage when other teams don't respect him. But the team with Cassell and Allen throwing bricks, and Pierce taking 1 shot in the first half is uninspiring to say the least.

Rivers has made some baffling decisions, but that doesn't go all the way to explain why Pierce and Allen have gone invisible for most of the road games (whereas KG has been consistently excellent, while never quite dominating).

Posted by Richard Cownie | May 27, 2008 2:48 PM

"Neither LA nor Boston strike me as being particularly champion-like at this point, primarily because they are built around two guys whose basketball minds seem more centered on the marketing department than the gym."
===
Jeez, you don't have to like either Boston or LA, but I doubt you could find two guys in the NBA more dedicated to the gym than Kobe and KG.

Find another reason to dislike them if you must (hint: world-class a-hole/anti-clutch) because those two guys are well-known for killing themselves - and teammates - in practice.

Posted by hubcap | May 27, 2008 2:57 PM

Half the country seems mesmerized by the Lakers. Ya'll need to get off LA's dick.

They are hardly the favorite to win the championship this year, as the play THE WORST DEFENSE of the four teams left.

They are also the YOUNGEST of the four teams left.

The Lakers are a good team, but overrated right now.

Posted by Down with Dickriders | May 27, 2008 3:03 PM

Pistons are the greatest team in the history of b-ball

they have no star, only players

Boston sucks!

Lakers suck!

Spurs suck!

hehehehehehehe

look out, here comes Dee-troit!

Posted by redman | May 27, 2008 3:05 PM

DWD,
Uh, I'm not sure how to break this to you, but the Lakers ARE the favorites to win the championship. And as much as I would love ride LA's dick, this is purely a fact, not opinion. Or maybe by favorite, you simply mean YOUR favorite.

Posted by Stacy | May 27, 2008 3:11 PM

To those who say Cassell was needed to break Hunter's full-court pressure because House can't handle the ball:

1) 17 minutes of Cassell?
2) If you play Rondo for more like 40 minutes rather than 30 (he's a young guy, and he played 40 in the first two games), it's not that big a deal to have Pierce in the game alongside House to bring the ball up, when Hunter is also in.
3) In the first two games of the series, House had 0 turnovers in a total of 17 minutes of playing time.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 27, 2008 4:20 PM

Perhaps more to the point, if Rivers is convinced he needs Cassell, he should be playing him every game. He'd be wrong, because Cassell seems to be a mess at this stage in his career, but he'd screw things up less than what he's doing by yanking his rotations around from game to game.

Posted by Antid Oto | May 27, 2008 4:24 PM

I dislike all 4 of these teams, and am personally hoping that we can petition Stern to get Phoenix back in the playoffs. But failing that, I'd prefer LA-Boston, simply for the reason that I'm bored with SA and Detroit, given that we've seen so much of them the past few years. Yes, yes, they play nice basketball, but I'd just prefer to see some new blood and a different matchup.

Also, if they are insisting on playing Cassell, why not get House a few minutes in Ray Allen's place? Allen's been terrible the entire playoffs, and you can just let House run around screens following Rip Hamilton for a while and let Allen get a little more rest.

Posted by Al | May 27, 2008 4:32 PM

Personally, I think everyone is exaggerating about Doc Rivers, more responsibility should be put on Boston's stars.

As for Sam Cassell, one bad game, no big deal. That guy is still a gamer, don't sleep on him. Teams could do a lot worse as far as backup point guard, which is all the minutes Cassell is likely to get.

Interestingly, every Boston player had a negative +/- in last night's game except Cassell (+/- showing how your team did on the scoreboard while only you were in the game), most of them far worse than Cassell, so the focus should probably be elsewhere on why Boston got whipped.

Posted by Jimm | May 27, 2008 4:49 PM

What the hell is Joey Crawford doing reffing tonight's Spurs-Lakers game??? He shouldn't be let near a playoffs game where the Spurs are involved!

Posted by Mike Thomas | May 27, 2008 5:59 PM

Yes how horrible two team oriented, defensively minded, well coached teams may make the finals. How horrible for all "real" basketball fans. Everyone who understands the NBA realizes it's not what you do or how you play the game but how many 1 on 5 shots you take, how many times you pound your chest and scream at the top of your lungs when you make an uncontested dunk, and how may gatorade commercials you can squeeze in a 30 min slot. Spurs and Detroit represent all that's wrong with basketball today.

Posted by Drew | May 27, 2008 6:42 PM

Spurs...represent all that's wrong with basketball today.

Whining, flopping, dirty play, and breaks from the refs? Accompanied by a media that will not mention those failings lest they be forced to stop sucking the team's collective dick? We agree.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 27, 2008 7:06 PM

I dislike all 4 of these teams

Me too, but I dislike the Pistons the least. When the Hornets got knocked out, it hurt almost as much as when my Suns did.

If this turns into a Lakers-Celtics nostalgia-fueled circle-jerk, I'm going to have to

Posted by ben | May 27, 2008 7:11 PM

Look, I can't help the fact that the NBA in the 1980s was the pinnacle of human achievement, in sports or any other field. If you accept the fact that ABCDisney is going to bombard us with lame, sappy programming of some sort, no matter who is in the Fimals -- well, wouldn't you rather watch Magic and Bird highlights than hear about what a scrappy, hard worker Bruce Bowen is?

Posted by too many steves | May 27, 2008 7:27 PM

too many steves, speaking as someone who was there, in the gah-den, for some of bird-magic (including that frickin' baby hook in 1987), no, i want today's best goin' at it, not highlight reveries.

and some call me tim, you give me the chance to cite one of my favorite post-season links this year, frank ramsay of the boston celts discussing how to draw fouls and win games back in 1963 (it appeared in the first issue of a sports illustrated subscription that my parents got my adolescent self for a birthday gift):

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1075469/index.htm

PS. the actual magazine issue accompanied the writeup with hand-drawn illustrations that emphasized the point: while they don't appear here, this stuff was brand new as far as the public was concerned back then....

Posted by howard | May 27, 2008 9:42 PM

All but one of the playoff games the Celtics have lost involved Doc Rivers leaving Cassell in the game too long. There are three reasons the Celtics in the playoffs don't match the Celtics in the regular season: Rondo is being screwed over by Rivers in favor of Cassell, Ray Allen has lost his shot, and Paul Pierce can't go two games in a row without multiple stupid passes and spinning turnovers.

Rondo is not perfect, but he learns, and when he's on, he can be magical. Cassell can barely bring the ball up court, and he stops five feet short of the three-point line, which moves the whole Celtics offense away from the basket.

But the whole team was off last night, Rondo included. Oh the pain.

Posted by Walter Crockett | May 27, 2008 10:00 PM

Stacy, like I said before, Garnett is a historically dominant defensive player, and a very good offensive player. If he had spent his career on a roster with better teammates, this would have been enough, and people wouldn't harp on his limitations. Instead, he has played his entire career with exactly one season with a teammate who can rightfully be considered dominant, this year with Pierce, so people harp on the fact that Garnett is not Michael Jordan. That ain't analysis, that's Last Call for Alcohol ruminating. If Tim Duncan has spent the vast majority of his career surrounded by the likes of Stephan Marbury, Troy Hudson, Michael Olowakandi, etc., etc., Tim Duncan would be viewed far differently.

I've never been a hard-core Celtic fan; I just enjoy great basketball, so I am fond of the 1986 Celtics, and consider it a great shortcoming that we basketball fans neve saw the finest Celtic roster of the '80s play the finest Laker roster of ther 80's while both teams were healthy. That woulda' been somethin'. Anybody who didn't see the lack of depth on this year's Celtic roster, or Rondo's shortcomings, and how these factors may interact unfavorably with the three stars being past 30 years old, just doesn't understand the NBA. Yeah, you may get by with two stars in their 30s, if you get a little lucky. The chance of getting by with three stars in their thirties shrinks considerably.

I'm sure Ainge tried to offer Mchale a new ice fishing house or a lifetime supply of walleye, in order to not send Jefferson to the Timberwolves in the Garnett deal, and if Jefferson was the third option in the Celtics' offense, THAT would have been something to see, but their are limits to how badly even the Timberwolves management can foul something up.

Posted by Will Allen | May 27, 2008 10:26 PM

Since I'm not going to read this whole thread, I will keep this brief in case it is redundant.

Historically, Pistons-Lakers matchups have done quite well from a ratings perspective. Personally, I suspect the clear contrast between the respective cities helps to sell series.

But the Spurs are indeed ratings poison.

Posted by DTM | May 27, 2008 11:43 PM

Somehow, these Celtics are deep without having a good bench. What I mean is: they have a lot of half-decent bench players: Powe, Posey, House, Cassell, Davis, PJ Brown. But that's a lot of 8th men and no 6th man. Those guys are all OK bench players, but none of them are good bench players. And some of them are very, very old.

Posted by too many steves | May 28, 2008 12:04 AM

if you're a hyperactive superstar junkie who thinks the peak of basketball history was "come fly with me," then i can see why you have a problem with pistons-spurs, but that's a different story

What howard said! Celtics-Lakers is entirely too slick.

Posted by 4jkb4ia | May 28, 2008 12:30 AM

Whatever you want to say about the "fundamentally sound team basketball" Spurs is pure bullshit. They're a dirty team, and (when they're not trying to draw the other team into a street fight) they play boring basketball.

I mean, I hated Horry BEFORE he was on the Spurs. Now put him with Bowen, and they're making me dislike even Timmy.

Posted by dbt | May 28, 2008 12:58 AM