A little NBA on the eve of the Finals

When you think about the Boston Celtics and their run to the Finals, you probably think that Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett were the main reasons for that. But you'd be wrong, says SI's Ian Thomsen; it was all Doc Rivers. Let's find out why.

Rivers' winning methods with Boston can be traced back to Orlando. Four seasons after he retired as a player, Rivers was hired to run the Magic in 1999 and was voted Coach of the Year as a rookie.

"Winning methods." Number of playoff series won by Orlando with Rivers as coach: zero. And that Coach of the Year award he won was one of the biggest travesties in the history of awards. Orlando missed the playoffs that season, but because everyone expected them to be terrible he won Coach of the Year. It was the bias of low expectations taken to an extreme; just because we assume a team is a 20-win team doesn't mean it is, and to act like Rivers pulled a miracle in getting Orlando to miss the playoffs was disgraceful. But the Coach of the Year never does go to the actual best coach, but rather the coach who exceeds expectations the most. The fact that our expecations may have been wrong is irrelevant. But I digress. So let's find out why Orlando didn't win any playoff series while Rivers was there.

He spent the next four years coaching Tracy McGrady, who for many reasons was never able to channel his enormous talent.

Of course, it was that dastardly Tracy McGrady. Notice how McGrady is blamed here for not channeling his enormous talent. Now contrast that with this line further in the article:

No one has benefited more than Rajon Rondo, whose learning curve has been escalated by a coach who knows first-hand every trick of the position.

So when Rajon Rondo develops, it's all Doc Rivers. But when Tracy McGrady doesn't fully develop, it's all Tracy McGrady. In other words, when good things happen Rivers gets the credit. When bad things happen, Rivers gets none of the blame. Got it? Got it.

And by the way, McGrady's development may have been stunted by the fact that his best teammate in Orlando was Darrell Armstrong. Which brings me back to my larger point; it's all about the players. When Rivers can toss out a starting lineup with four potential Hall of Famers (projecting Rondo on that one), magically he wins. When he can toss out a starting lineup of Tracy McGrady and a bunch of NBDL rejects, he doesn't win. Funny how that works. Speaking of funny, watch how this next line is casually tossed out there:

After Rivers was fired in 2003 after a 1-10 start

There's more to that sentence, but I'm going to stop it right there. The writer doesn't bother to mention how ghastly horrific a 1-10 start is, he just casually tosses it out there as the reason Rivers was fired. Hey, who hasn't had a 1-10 start? Happens to the best of us. Later on, more hilarity ensues:

And yet, the Celtics appeared adrift and unresponsive while going 27-27 over the final four months of the season. The truth has since emerged: Rivers was treating the second half of the season as an extended training camp aimed to rehabilitate Garnett and Pierce from knee injuries with limited game minutes and harder practices.

Ahh, of course. The 2nd half of the season was just an extended training camp. Losing to teams like the Nets and Knicks was all just part of the plan to get ready for the postseason. Sheer fucking genius. My only question is, why the fuck didn't Kurt Rambis think of this? That fool treated regular season games like regular season games; no wonder the Timberwolves sucked so bad. You treat the 2nd half of the season like an extended training camp, dipshit.

-------

Is it taught in journalism schools that when you write an article about someone, you cannot at all mention their faults? You read articles like this all the time; the writer praises the subject while either glossing over or ignoring entirely any faults the person might have. Do you know what is missing entirely from this article on Doc Rivers? The 19-game losing streak his Celtics went on the year before they acquired Garnett.

Why can't we just write a fair article? Why can't we just write that Doc Rivers wasn't much of a coach until Garnett and Allen came aboard. You know what? I'd even let you take credit for the development of Rondo, Perkins and Big Baby Davis if you would just admit that Rivers sucked in Orlando (as evidenced by the 1-10 start that was so casually mentioned), and he didn't start winning in Boston until he had great players.

Or how about this; write an article about the real reason the Celtics are here, which is the players. The NBA is all about the players, and anyone who tries to credit the coach is a fool. Phil Jackson is widely regarded as the best ever, but of course he's never won a title without having the best players in the league on his team. Did he win in Chicago without Jordan? He did not. Did he win in Los Angeles without Shaq until the Lakers were able to acquire Pau Gasol? He did not.

Sorry Ian Thomsen, but if you can't even give that much credit to Phil Jackson and his 10 championships, then Doc Rivers doesn't have a prayer in hell. And quite honestly, he doesn't. It was only by the good grace of Danny Ainge that Rivers wasn't fired after that horrific Celtics season before Garnett and Allen, when they were in position for the #1 or #2 pick.