Re: March Madness, or Where did Paul Pierce go?

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>]

Jim, 

Thanks for the feedback! 

I didn't intend to underplay the importance of either physical factors (the
injury, the rigors of the pro game versus the college game) or opposing
defenses and your comments certainly serve to redirect our attention to
both of those factors. Also, I agree with you that Pierce should not be
expected to be the 'main man'. But you've got to admit that it is a long
way from 'main man' to being a virtual 'nobody' (i.e., three-point
specialist). 

I've got two reactions to your comment regarding my "basic premise". First,
you are almost certainly correct that Pitino's reported comments came after
the March 2nd game in Cleveland. We all remember that Paul was the darling
of the media before then and to judge from the reporters he could do no
wrong. But after that game? Then we heard that Pitino had been trying to
get Pierce to do things differently, that Pierce had been "graded out" at
the "absolute bottom" in games prior to Cleveland, that this was all part
of Pitino's plan to keep Pierce "hungry". So, yes, you are right: the
comments reported in the press came after the Cleveland game. But the
reported comments themselves allude pretty clearly to an already
pre-existing state of affairs. If the comments were accurate then that
state of affairs predated Paul's recent skid.

More importantly, however, is the fact that the "what and when" of Pitino's
comments are at best tangential to the basic premise of the article: that
among the other problems suffered by Pierce this month, a major problem
that has passed unnoticed is that fact that has he has had to adjust
himself to a substantially different role within the offense. 

If there has been a misunderstanding then I should share as much blame as
anyone, since I couldn't resist playing up Pitino's comments in order to
illustrate the point. I probably should have simply let the numbers do the
talking. I'm kicking myself for not having posted the following numbers in
the previous article, as I think they most clearly illustrate the crux of
the matter: 

Mercer shot attempts: February - 93; March - 208
Pierce shot attempts: February - 171; March - 85

Note in addition that Mercer missed five full games in February while
Pierce has only missed two in March and I think that one can better
appreciate exactly where a good chunk of Pierce's production has gone. No
doubt about it, injuries and opposing defenses have played a role, but the
return of a healthy Ron Mercer has also had a major impact upon Pierce's
team role.

Of course, individual stats are just tools for helping us evaluate the
team's performance. What we all really want is wins! Let's keep our fingers
crossed tonight and hope that Coach P find the right chemistry to shake
this team up. 

Best wishes - Tom Murphy

----------
> From: Jim Meninno <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>
> To: tfmiii@worldnet.att.net; celtics@igtc.com
> Subject: March Madness, or Where did Paul Pierce go?
> Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 10:25 AM
> 
> You know, despite Joe's glowing praise of your post, I think your basic 
> premise is wrong.  Pitino's comments about Pierce needing to be less 
> predictable came in direct response to his 2 point, 0-11 performance 
> against Cleveland on March 2nd, and not before it, didn't they?  Pierce 
> had scored 20 or more points in 6 of his previous 7 games and 19 or more 
> in 11 of the first 12 games of the season.  He then ran into a team that 
> had decided he needed to be stopped.  And they did stop him.  Pitino's 
> comments, that NBA defenses are sophisticated and take away anything you 
> have been doing night after night, were right on the money.  Pierce then 
> responded with a 17 point effort in his next game, but got a 'T' for 
> taunting another player.  He got stopped again in his next game scoring 
> 7 on 3-11 shooting in Toronto, and got hurt the very next game.  
> 
> It's clear to me that Paul took that 0-11 performance very badly.  He 
> was making comments like, you won't see me doing that again.  He was 
> very pumped up for the next game.  Probably too much, hence the 
> technical.  Since then, he's been struggling with an injury.  I imagine 
> it must be very frustrating.  The best thing for him would be to work 
> back slowly, until he's 100% physically.  It was not a good idea for the 
> team to depend on a rookie for 20 points per game, but Mercer was 
> injured and Antoine was taking fewer shots (as everyone wished for).  
> Now Mercer's back, but Paul isn't.  Antoine's trying to make up the 
> difference and he's forcing things (as is Mercer, for that matter).  
> 
> Hopefully Pierce is nearly better.  They can look to him for, say, 16 a 
> night now that Mercer's back.  Get him involved, but not to the point 
> that he's the main man.  He might grow into that role, but right now he 
> seems to take it too hard when he fails.
> 
> Jim
> 
> >Thomas Murphy wrote:
> 
> >Where did Paul Pierce go?
> >.....
> >Before I get to the figures I’d like to provide a bit more context. 
> March
> >began - *before* the current slide in Paul’s production - with Coach 
> Pitino
> >saying that Pierce needed to begin trying to do “different things” on 
> the
> >court. Now, you may ask yourself why on earth a player who is averaging 
> 20
> >ppg, 8 rpg, nearly 3 steals and 1.5 blocks per game needs to start 
> doing
> >“different things”?
> 
> 
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com