0 comments So Apparently Bleacher Report Thinks the Celtics are Better Off with Brad Stevens Than with Doc Rivers

When I'm sad, I can always count on Bleacher Report to pick me up. There's no denying Bleacher Report has started to assemble a good roster of columnists for every sport, but it's just dressing for what lies beneath. You can dress a whore up like a princess for the night, but don't be surprised if she steals a $100 to put in her glass slipper on her way out the door. So the seedy underbelly of Bleacher Report still reveals the dregs of unpaid writers just trying to get their name out there by writing something that gains as much attention as possible. So Bleacher Report has an article up about how the Celtics are better off with Brad Stevens (he of zero NBA coaching victories) than Doc Rivers (he of one NBA title and two NBA Finals appearances), and you won't believe this, there is a slideshow that accompanies the six reasons why Stevens' presence means the Celtics are better off. There are six reasons, but of course there are eight slides in this story. As always, the 8th slide is really the next slideshow. This is just one of the little underhanded things Bleacher Report does to annoy me.

When Celtics president Danny Ainge released news of the hire this past Independence Day, it turned a lot of heads.

Many had to put down their hot dogs, climb out of the pool or pause Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum's world-saving mission 

In reading this author's biography it says he performs "sporadic" stand-up comedy. After reading this introduction, I'm assuming the "sporadic" part refers to the actual amount of comedy found in his stand-up routine.

to find out if Brad Stevens was indeed that young-looking guy who took a school they'd never heard of to two NCAA championship games.

This is as opposed to the other Brad Stevens that no one has heard of and happens to be a basketball head coach.

At first, it was equally surprising when news officially broke that Doc Rivers was the new Los Angeles Clippers head coach. However, that saga went on for some time before a move was finally made.

"It was very surprising that Doc Rivers was the Los Angeles Clippers head coach, but it took some time for him to actually become the Clippers head coach, so it wasn't really that surprising when news broke Rivers was the Clippers head coach."

Now, Boston has a new leader for the first time since 2004. The team may not be successful next season, but Stevens will be judged on so much more than that in year one.

Yeah, Stevens isn't going to be judged on those pesky wins and losses like Doc Rivers so strongly insisted the Celtics be judged on. Counting wins and losses is for losers. Also, later in this slideshow the author argues the Boston media wasn't hard enough on Doc Rivers, then he seems to indicate the Boston media will be even less hard on Brad Stevens and this is a good thing. I can't figure it out either.

Let's start the slideshow!

Stevens Wants to Be in Boston

It's the Bill Simmons argument about how Doc Rivers didn't even want to be in Boston anymore. It's true, but I think this reason comes more from a place of hurt at the Celtics getting rejected by a head coach (you don't do that to the Celtics!) more than anything else. It's sort of the idea that Rivers hurt their feelings, so they don't want him anyway.

Quite simply, there was no one forcing him out. He took some time for himself and his family and realized what he wanted out of the next few years wasn't going to be found in Celtics green. While there is certainly nothing wrong with that on a professional or personal level, Rivers made the choice to move on.

Couldn't there be an article written by a Butler Bulldogs fan saying their team will be better off without Brad Stevens because he didn't want to be at Butler anymore and made the choice to move on? Sure, and the factual nature of Stevens not being at Butler anymore doesn't mean the school is better off with a coach that wants to be there.

Brad Stevens is a different animal entirely. The new head coach, 15 years Rivers' junior, is grateful for the opportunity to just be at the NBA level. He views Boston as a gift, while Doc clearly saw the upcoming season as a chore.

Yes, your feelings got hurt that Rivers didn't want to be in Boston anymore. It doesn't mean the Celtics are better off with Stevens over Rivers. It may mean the Celtics are better off with a new head coach over keeping Rivers, but Stevens eagerness to coach at the NBA-level doesn't mean he is a better option than Rivers.

To illustrate that, Stevens has moved his entire family to a home in Massachusetts. Even though he coached in Boston for nine years, Rivers still maintained his official address in Florida.

DOC RIVERS WAS NEVER A TRUE CELTIC BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LIVE IN BOSTON!

Stevens Is Willing and Able to Coach Young Players

Generation gaps can be a difficult thing to cross, particularly in a sport like basketball, where so much praise is heaped onto individual players.

Rivers is old and crotchety, while Stevens is young and hip. I remember when this reasoning was used for why Raheem Morris was going to make a great NFL head coach.

Doc Rivers was occasionally knocked for not giving his youth enough real time to improve and grow as players. Last season's roster featured only three players who could be considered home-grown from Rivers' time: Rajon Rondo, Avery Bradley and Jared Sullinger.

To be fair, when your lineup includes three Hall of Fame players it is hard to find big minutes for young guys coming off the bench. Still, Rivers found room for young players to play good minutes when he coached the Celtics. It didn't make sense with the roster the Celtics had for most of Rivers' tenure to put young guys on the court for 30+ minutes  though.

2004-2005: Four players aged 20-23 years old played between 13-16 minutes per game.

2005-2006: Delonte West (22 years old) played 34 minutes per game and six players aged 21-24 played between 15-22 minutes per game.

2006-2007: Al Jefferson (22), Delonte West (23), Ryan Gomes (24) all played between 31-33 minutes per game. Rondo (20) played 23.5 minutes per game, Gerald Green (21) played 22 minutes per game, and Kendrick Perkins (22)/Sebastian Talfair (21) played 22 and 20 minutes per game respectively.

2007-2008 (the year the Celtics added three Hall of Famers): Rondo (21) played 29.9 minutes per game, Perkins (23) played 24.5 minutes per game and Leon Powe (24)/Glen Davis (22) played 14 and 13 minutes per game respectively.

2008-2009: Perkins (24) played 29 minutes per game, Davis (23) played 21 minutes per game and Rondo (22) played 33 minutes per game.

2009-2010: Rondo (23) led the team in minutes played per game, while Glen Davis (24) played 17 minutes per game.

2010-2011: Rondo (24) again led the team in minutes played and Jeff Green (24) played 23 minutes per game. You can see Rivers stopped playing young guys because there were no young guys on the roster. Luke Harangody was the second-youngest on the roster at 23 years old. There's no point in playing young guys at the expense of a team winning games.

2011-2012: Avery Bradley (21) played 21 minutes per game. Danny Ainge acquired veteran players to fill out his bench, so it made it difficult to play young guys that weren't on the roster.

2012-2013: Avery Bradley (22) played 28 minutes per game, Jordan Crawford (24) and Jared Sullinger (20) played 19 minutes per game.

Still, none of those three played more than 50 games. Bradley saw 28.7 minutes a night, while Sullinger played 19.8 on average.

What an incredibly misleading statement. Of course neither Rondo, Bradley, or Sullinger played more than 50 games. Rondo and Sullinger missed a lot of the second half of the season with season-ending injuries and Bradley didn't play his first game until January 2. Don't mislead your audience and make them think Doc Rivers refused to play these young guys when it was really injuries that caused them to miss a lot of season.

Those numbers, along with those of Kelly Olynyk, Vitor Faverani, MarShon Brooks and probably Phil Pressey, are going to go way up this coming year and beyond. 

The only reason these young guys will get major minutes is because the Celtics team as a whole is not very good. There's a difference in playing young guys who are good and playing young guys because it's all you have.

Where Rivers may have been stubborn in using mediocre veterans to try and win now, Stevens has a better grasp on young players and will hopefully utilize them better and give them a chance to grow.

Because we all know Avery Bradley, Glen Davis, Kendrick Perkins, and Rajon Rondo were not given time to grow with the Celtics. That's why Perkins and Davis have been so stellar since leaving Boston and Rondo/Bradley haven't been quality NBA players.

Open-Minded to New Basketball Ideas

However, recently there were a few stories about how Stevens is much more than that. According to the Boston Herald, the new Boston Celtics head coach does rely heavily on the eye test as well.

This is as opposed to Doc Rivers, who used to coach entire games with his eyes closed.

He does embrace the increasingly valuable analytics, as illustrated by bringing stat-man Drew Cannon on board from Butler to Boston. However, Stevens isn't rejecting old-school thought about the game.

He uses numbers AND the eye test. A revolutionary way of thinking for a town crucial to winning the Revolutionary War.

Doc Rivers learned to think one way over 13-plus years as an NBA head coach and another 13 as a player. Stevens can be more accepting of both worlds, which better suits the Celtics needs right now.

Okay, great. I'm not going to argue a different perspective is a bad thing, but it's known that Doc Rivers can coach NBA players and we haven't seen that yet from Brad Stevens. I think this is an important point.
 
Stevens Comes at a Discount

And when has "Hey, he's cheaper!" ever been a bad thing?

The move saved them a fair amount of money and garnered another first-round draft pick in 2015.

I like the idea of another first round draft pick, but that draft pick isn't any good if Stevens doesn't show himself to be a competent NBA coach. See, that's the biggest point missing here. The history of college coaches coming to the NBA is horrific and Rivers is a proven NBA coach while Brad Stevens isn't. I would hope Stevens would be cheaper than a coach who has an NBA title.

After sending that salary responsibility to the Los Angeles Clippers, the Celtics made a move to sign Stevens for six years and $22 million. The move will save them around $3.4 million per year, while having a coach locked up for an extra three seasons if he works out.

Or, you know, paying three extra seasons if he doesn't work out. The Celtics could have spent $7 million over the next three years on Rivers or $22 million on Stevens for six years. If Stevens works out then he is a great deal, but if he doesn't work it isn't such a great deal.

For what the Celtics were trying to do this past offseason, paying Rivers that much money seemed to be a stretch.

Because you definitely don't want a proven NBA head coach to be teaching young players. That's just crazy.

Stevens' contract is much more reasonable for the amount of power you want that position wielding.

I'm not even sure what this means. This means Stevens' contract is reasonable because the team won't be very good or it means Stevens won't have as much power in the organization so he shouldn't get paid like he does?

Stevens Has a Better Grasp on the College Game

Great! Unfortunately the Boston Celtics are an NBA team. So..............

As much as money, weather and proximity can help a franchise maintain success through free agency, eventually that team will rely on the college ranks to draft a player capable of occupying an important role.

But they are professional athletes, not college athletes. So while teams will rely on the college ranks in drafting good players, the NBA is not college basketball.

The Miami Heat have won back-to-back championships, and most of that credit will go to the acquisitions of LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Ray Allen and Shane Battier. However, without drafting Dwyane Wade, none of that happens. Miami draftees Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole and Udonis Haslem all played major roles in those wins as well.

Outside of Wade these are all role players. Role players don't win championships. So Stevens' familiarity with the college game doesn't mean he is better able to scout and find NBA talent in the college game.

Doc Rivers didn't have the greatest connection with the college game. He started his coaching career in the NBA, where he had finished his playing career just a few years earlier.

(Shakes head sadly) But it's his job to coach NBA players. He's pretty good at that.

Stevens will also relate better to players who were recently a part of that college atmosphere and are making the difficult transition to the NBA.

How will Brad Stevens relate to NBA players better than ex-NBA player Doc Rivers? How in the hell is this possible? Doc Rivers has coached and played at the NBA level, but Brad Stevens magically has some better connection to get through to NBA players coming from college because he understands their experience better than someone who actually made the transition to the NBA from college? What the fuckity-fuck?

Doc Had Reached Media Saturation

I'm not sure this is a real thing.

It is a good thing to have Doc Rivers as head coach of one's basketball team. He seems to have improved with the years of experience from a coaching standpoint, and you won't find a better person at managing both personalities in his locker room and the media when in front of a microphone and camera.

But the Celtics are better off with a coach who isn't as good at managing personalities in the locker room and the media? Also, I think you can find better coaches than Doc Rivers at managing personalities in the locker room and media. I would submit Phil Jackson has shown himself to be much better than Rivers. That's a different argument for a different day.

His smile is somewhat mesmerizing once you see it enough times. 

I feel like the author is kissing a poster of Doc Rivers right now. 

The media is an entity built on holding a mirror to society. In basketball terms, that means an honest description of how a player or coach is performing. With the Boston and, occasionally, national press, so enamored with Rivers, there was a lack of accountability starting to rear its head.

I know. Someone should have made Rivers more accountable for the seven playoff appearances, two NBA Finals appearances, and 506 wins he had over nine seasons as the Celtics head coach. It was horrifying how he took a rapidly aging Celtics team and continuously made them competitive by winning the Atlantic Division six times.

But, after a while, that air can become polluted with bias.

Someone needed to rip Rivers for existing and not winning an NBA Title every season. Thanks Dan Shaughnessy.

Brad Stevens may wind up being just as friendly and forthcoming with the media as Rivers was, but he'll most certainly be held to a different standard at the outset.

So the author says the Boston media was too easy on Doc Rivers and then states Brad Stevens is going to be held to a different standard. Given the fact the Celtics are rebuilding doesn't this mean the Boston media will go even easier on Stevens? After all, Stevens has less to work with, and if we are working under the assumption Rivers got a pass then won't Stevens get a pass for not immediately turning a Celtics team on a 3-4 year long-range plan around?

Boston fell in love too much with Doc for a while.  He could do no wrong. It is just human nature.

And of course the Celtics are better off with Brad Stevens anyway. He can relate to NBA players better than Rivers could. Also, I love the irony of the author saying Boston fell in love too much with Doc Rivers, while writing a slideshow about how hiring an unproven NBA head coach is better than keeping a head coach who has an NBA Title. Sounds like the author is a bit too much in love with Brad Stevens at this current time. 

4 comments Jeff Goodman OD's On His Crazy Pills, Finds His Way To the Keyboard

I like Brad Stevens. I think he is one of the greatest coaches in the history of the NCAA, wait no, that is Jeff Goodman that thinks that. I do think he is one of the best coaches over the past couple of years. He should not be inducted in the Hall of Fame right now. Yet, that is exactly what Jeff Goodman is suggesting. Goodman wrote this before Butler played in the national championship last Monday , so he wanted to induct Stevens immediately no matter whether he has won a national title or not. Given the somewhat crazy idea of inducting Stevens into the Hall of Fame now, I can't help but wonder if Goodman changed his mind based on Butler only scoring 41 points. No matter what, it seems the NCAA Tournament has Jeff Goodman taking crazy pills.

Brad Stevens is a stickler for the rulebook.

I have a feeling Brad Stevens is going to be put up on a big, big pedestal very soon. I have a feeling it is starting already.

However, one rule needs to be broken with regards to the Bulldogs' 34-year-old coach.

They need to put him in the Hall of Fame.

Yes, if he continues his great coaching for an extended period of time pursuant to the rules of when a coach is allowed to be placed in the Hall of Fame, that is where he should go. He has coached 124 games in his coaching career so far, but if he keeps this up, I think he will go in the Hall of Fame.

So let's wait a few years, shall we?

Now.

I think we have a misprint because it seems that Jeff Goodman just stated Brad Stevens should be in the Hall of Fame, right now. I mean, that would just be crazy and really stupid to do. I am sure he didn't mean it.

They need to put him in the Hall of Fame.

Now.

Or maybe Jeff Goodman did mean it. Somebody has Stevens Fever! Does this mean Jeff Goodman is going to cut his hair like Brad Stevens and start wearing glasses? I hope so.

Let’s waive the Hall of Fame’s protocol of 25 active years or five years in retirement and just send Opie Taylor, I mean Stevens, to Springfield, Mass., immediately.

Of course, it makes complete sense to put Brad Stevens in the Hall of Fame after he has coached 4 years of college basketball when the standard is currently 25 years. The reason it seems Jeff Goodman thinks this is smart is because Brad Stevens looks SO NORMAL! Looking normal and coaching well over four years should be the ONLY criteria for making the Hall of Fame.

Why waste time?

Other than the fact it is the rules concerning inducting coaches into the Hall of Fame? Because it makes sense to make sure Stevens ends up being one of the greatest coaches of all-time before inducting him as one of the greatest coaches of all-time. It's a pretty logical move. The Hall of Fame isn't going anywhere and there is no specific need to induct him right now, so why rush it? So rather than "why waste time?," I would ask "why hurry it?"

Why don't we induct Tom Izzo in the Hall of Fame right now, if Jeff Goodman is so eager to screw all the rules and just go apeshit inducting coaches into the Hall of Fame? Izzo had a national championship, a Final Four appearance, and a Sweet Sixteen appearance during his first 5 years at Michigan State. If we are going to say "fuck it all" to the Hall of Fame system, why not induct guys who have been coaching longer than 4 years and had early success? How about inducting Bo Ryan, who went 93-37 over his first four years at Wisconsin in a tougher conference than the Horizon League and with a more difficult schedule than Butler's? Or would that make too much sense and go against the Stevens Fever that is developing among college basketball analysts? Does it really make sense to start waiving rules to induct a guy after 4 years and less sense to induct coaches who have been coaching for over 15 years who deserve induction?

Here's a dream scenario for college basketball analysts. Brad Stevens coaches Jimmer Fredetter and Gus Johnson calls the game. There wouldn't be a dry pant in the house if that happened.

Stevens has already earned it among the game’s greats.

Yes, after just four years.

I'm not going to fall for your silly logic over whether Stevens one of the games greatest coaches yet. The bottom line is the rules are set up for a reason. If Calipari and Izzo can't have the 25 year rule waived than Brad Stevens doesn't deserve it either. Hell, Brad Stevens would agree with this because he's so damn classy like that. He would shake his head and smile all sweet-like and say he doesn't deserve it.

Stevens has an 11-3 overall mark in the Big Dance, and his winning percentage tops all active coaches. It’s not all that far behind the Wizard of Westwood, John Wooden.

Sample size alert! Let's give the guy a chance to have a bad year or two. He may be in the Hall of Fame at some point, but why the hell does he have to be inducted now? Because he's a nice guy and answers all of Jeff Goodman's questions?

I’m not ready to say he’s going to be more successful than Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski or even Michigan State’s Tom Izzo, but I'm not sure Coach K or Izzo could have done what Stevens has at Butler.

I hate arguable points like this. They serve no purpose. I don't know if Brad Stevens could do what Tom Izzo and Coach K have done at Michigan State and Duke. It is nice to recruit players who you can coach up and get the best out of, but it is also difficult to coach players who are highly recruited and think their shit don't stink. I know, it sounds crazy, but sometimes having big-time recruits can be a bad thing.

He's won 117 games in his first four years — a number surpassed by no one at the Division I level.

Other than the other coaches who have won more games because they have coached longer. See, the point is they have coached longer and have earned the Hall of Fame induction by sustained success over a long period of time.

However, Stevens has proved he’s one of the master coaches in this game at the tender age of 34.

No one is disagreeing. Everyone wonders why the hell he should be inducted in the Hall of Fame immediately. It makes not of sense! Is Stevens dying or something? Why must this induction occur right now?

And he does it the right way.

Oh Jesus, here we go. He's a saint in a world of cheaters. This is another reason Stevens' Hall of Fame induction ceremony should wait, talk to me in 15 years and see if he still does it "the right way." He probably will, but he isn't the lone saint in a world of sinner coaches.

Goetz got a text from Stevens earlier this year while he was in St. Louis recruiting. He was standing outside the arena at Saint Louis University after a high school tournament concluded and was unable to get a cab.

He texted Goetz to see if it was a violation to hitch a ride from a man and his son, who had come up to him after seeing him standing alone on the street corner.

He is so freaking precious! Don't you just want to shrink him and put him in your pocket for safe-keeping so that no mortal man as wonderful as Brad Stevens ever comes to harm in the big, bad world? He's the Jimmer Fredette of coaches, the Tim Tebow of the Midwest.

"It was about 11:30 and he wasn’t in a great area," said Goetz, who is from St. Louis.

(whispers) "There were minorities all around Mr. Goodman. It was a TOUGH neighborhood Brad was in."

"I didn’t get the text until the next morning and called him back. He didn’t get in the car because he couldn’t get a hold of me."

I wish Butler would sponsor a hugging booth where we all could go and just hug Brad Stevens. He's like an anorexic, glasses-wearing teddy bear.

His seniors couldn’t come up with anything out of character, either, except for maybe when he jumps them in practice on occasion.

So, I ask politely, what the hell does this have to do with him needing to be inducted in the Hall of Fame RIGHT NOW? Unfortunately, being a really nice guy doesn't allow you to skip all the requirements for consideration in the Hall of Fame. So I can't back reasoning for Stevens to be in the Hall of Fame right now, and I really can't back it based on 50% of the reasoning having nothing to do with his coaching prowess.

Even Stevens had a difficult time trying to recall the most trouble he ever got into when he was a kid growing up in Zionsville, Ind.

"I got grounded a couple times when I was late coming home," he added without a hint of sarcasm.

Oh yeah? Well, I NEVER got grounded for coming home late because I always met my curfew! That makes me a saint and I should immediately be inducted in the Blogger Hall of Fame.

Seriously though, who even answers a question like this with a story about he got grounded when he was younger for coming home late? I like Stevens, but this is just trite and overly cutesy for a grown man to say without sarcasm in his voice.

Stevens is a different breed, almost the antithesis of his adversary Monday night: UConn’s 68-year-old coach Jim Calhoun.

Jim Calhoun sucks so that's not a hard coach to be the antithesis of. No, he doesn't suck at coaching, he just sucks.

Stevens is young and has no ego, and you could scour the entire coaching fraternity without hearing a single negative word.

This is impressive, but he has only been coaching for four years. That's barely enough time to make any solid enemies. Give him some time to be hated and see if this is still true before you induct him in the Hall of Fame. Not that whether Stevens is hated or loved should matter on whether he makes the Hall of Fame or not.

But he’s now making his second consecutive appearance in the national championship game.

That’s difficult to comprehend.

It is very impressive, as is winning the national title. I don't think this accomplishment is criteria for induction to the Hall of Fame. It's crazy to really believe it is.

Villanova’s Jay Wright has just one more NCAA tournament victory and he’s been at this for 17 years since he first took the Hofstra job in 1994.

I think it is pretty much well-known that Jay Wright's teams tend to wear down at the end of the year, at least lately. I like how Jeff Goodman cherry picks a coach like Jay Wright that is seen by the general public as successful to compare Brad Stevens to. It really goes to show us how Jay Wright really hasn't been that great of a coach in terms of tournament wins and possibly may be a bit overrated by some people. Basically, I think this says more about Wright than it does Stevens.

Jamie Dixon just completed his eighth season at Pittsburgh, and he and Stevens are deadlocked with 11 NCAA tournament victories.

Ditto. Dixon's teams underperform in the NCAA Tournament and Stevens' teams overperform. Yet again, this is not criteria for Stevens to be inducted in the Hall of Fame.

Amazing enough to put him among the greats.

At some point, if he keeps this pace up.

Yes, even after just four years.

No, not after four years. Put down the crazy pills Jeff. You clearly have lost your damn mind. Brad Stevens is a great coach, but there isn't any more reason to waive the 25 years of coaching requirement for him over other coaches who have coached longer.

This column was a result of Stevens Fever and a columnist beginning a slow descent into madness.