Re: to put it all in perspective. . .

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

Yeah, you're right. . . Orlando plays like what I think most of us expected
the Celtics to look like under Pitino. Rather strange. . .

I have to disagree on the orthodoxy point in one crucial respect - the
means of implementation of any given strategy. What you say about the
trapping is true to some extent (Although I get the feeling that they do
trap less selectively and more predictably than any other team in the
league), but whether they trap, press or play straight up it seems to me
that a Pitino-led team will be crucially different in one important respect
- ALL the moves are dictated from the bench. There seems to be NO room for
the players to exercise independent judgment in the execution of the plan
(this is why Pitino is always "vocalizing" on the bench). 

I could be wrong, but even if other teams are pressing, trapping etc. isn't
there some degree of judgment involved on the part of the players? With
Doc, Riley, Jackson? They may come up with highly specific strategies to be
implemented and even implement them on the fly but it is still up to the
players to recognize key aspects of those situations and react. I can't
think of another NBA coach who micromanages like Pitino. Isn't that why our
trap, press, whatever is that much less predictable (i.e., the other team
can't wait to hear the "orders")? 

I think part of the reason our more skilled players (as opposed to two
years ago) may seem as if they are "tuning out" or "mailing it in" at times
is because they are being asked to behave like automatons - only moving
when told to by the marionette master. This would have to be extremely
frustrating and demoralizing, since there must be countless occasions when
you can foresee certain problems that the coach simply does not have enough
time to react. I am convinced that his way of doing things works better
with marginally talented athletes (like Waltah) because such players are
simply happy to be on the court and more than happy to be an automaton if
that's what it takes to stay on the court (that's why Waltah always brings
energy - in a sense he's too stupid regarding bball to realize the inherent
limitations of what he's being asked to do and too happy simply being on
the court to care). Players with more skill and experience will not be able
to avoid feeling that they are being under-utilized or improperly utilized
because they have developed the ability to recognize what is happening just
as quickly or even quicker than the coach and yet have to remain "in place"
(or more likely "on the run")  until new orders are barked. Of course what
I'm talking about are tendencies and not absolutes, but having watched
Pitino for 3 years now I think I may be onto something.

That having been said, I think you may be right that his system is more
effective in the full court press, since it places the opposition in a less
familiar situation and the reaction times of the opposition are that much
longer (before they can shoot the ball) in comparison to half court. But if
what I've said has any truth to it, then the improvement will be marginal.
Pitino's system was designed to get the most out of players who would be
gone within 4-5 years. Nothing in his system seems designed to improve the
ability of the players to perform independently on the court - to develop
judgment and instincts that most of us take for granted as an important
part of the game. In the college game such training would represent wasted
effort
since the players are an ephemeral part of the system - any investment in
them is soon lost to the system. In the pros his system is best implemented
with young and/or marginally talented athletes - precisely the make-up of
his first team with the Cs. Such players will be happy simply to play and
do as they are told regardless of outcome - they won't be demoralized like
a superior player would. The better developed the players, the more they
can recognize the inevitable inadequacies of such a "Soviet-style"
centralized system. This leads to demoralization as realize that they are
artificially limited to the NBA equivalent of working the assembly line
turning widgets - being almost wholly unable to intervene in order to avoid
foreseeable problems. I have a hard time believing that Pitino was this
inflexible in his use of players his first time around the NBA with Mark
Jackson (one hell of a creative point) and Ewing, but someone else would
have to vouch for this. 

So, to sum up, if what I'm saying has any validity then it is not
accidental but a necessary consequence of Pitino's implementation of his
"system" that he will always get more out of lesser players but far less
out of what is objectively more talent.

I've already gone on too long - Cheers, TomM

----------
> From: Alex Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>
> To: Thomas Murphy <tfmiii@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Re: to put it all in perspective. . . 
> Date: Saturday, February 12, 2000 12:46 AM
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. I think that Orlando is a really interesting 
> example of a team that is successful in an unorthodox way. In fact,
> Rivers seems to use many of the same tools that Pitino succeeded
> with earlier in his career. He plays his best player for 32 minutes
> per game and ten other players for 15-28 minutes (before the Mercer
> trade). He uses his depth so that his players can spend the energy
> to run the other team off the court.
> 
> I actually don't think that Pitino has been too inflexible. He's
> actually changed a lot and become too orthodox, in my opinion. His
> success throughout his whole career in rebuilding teams has been
> to play "monkey outbreak" with a deep, athletic team. Now he feels 
> like he needs to succeed coaching a halfcourt, limited rotation, 
> low tempo game, like the majority of the league. I wasn't sure why
> but a few notes might shed some light. He's said that he admires
> Riley for being able to succeed with different styles of play,
> Showtime and Thugball, so maybe he wants to prove himself in a
> sense to be equal to Riley. The other thing is that his success
> with the Knicks in his second year corresponded with a move towards
> less pressing. Of course he had some nice halfcourt personnel too,
> with Ewing and Oakley inside.
> 
> I don't think that Pitino's halfcourt strategy of trapping and
> rotating is anything different than what the vast majority of the
> league does. I've tried to pay particular attention to this when
> I watch TNT/TBS games (which I spend too much time doing) and
> it's really standard. The execution, on the other hand, is often
> abysmal (and sometimes very good - weird) and that is Pitino's
> responsibility, though it's true that most young teams are pretty
> pathetic in half court defense.
> 
> I just think he's made a bad mix of personnel and strategy which
> I honestly don't understand. He seems to be heading towards a very
> orthodox, "same-as-everyone-else" coaching style that doesn't suit
> him or much of his personnel. He wants to play like everyone else
> but win more, and really why should he? He won 36 games his first
> year and was 28-30 at one point, with similarly bad talent to
> Orlando this year. I think he should go back to that same strategy,
> with better talent and more experience, and do the same. It's what
> he's done his whole career, why change now?
> 
> Alex