Sacbee:Adelman bases decisions on situation, feel

[slugking50]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/11953714p-12837970c.html
=============================

Adelman bases decisions on situation, feel
[font=verdana,geneva,arial,helvetica,sans-serif]

By Martin McNeal -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PST Friday, January 7, 2005


ATLANTA - Even the most casual NBA fan recognizes the basic decisions a coach must make in the fourth quarter - substitutions, clock management and offensive and defensive play calls.

Many other factors, such as statistics and educated opinions from his assistants, also weigh heavily on the coach's ultimate decision.

Given all that, the best and most logical head-coaching decision can turn out unproductive. Conversely, what seems to many to be a questionable decision can work out perfectly.

It's the dilemmas-turned-decisions-turned-dilemmas Kings coach Rick Adelman faced Wednesday night in Toronto and will face again tonight when his team meets the Atlanta Hawks in the third game of its four-game road trip.

With Toronto starting bruising, immobile rookie center Rafael Araujo, it would have seemed a good night to get Greg Ostertag - who Adelman said, just last week, needed to play every night - onto the floor.

Ostertag, however, did not play.

Adelman went with Darius Songaila, Kevin Martin and Maurice Evans - primarily with Brad Miller and Mike Bibby - for large chunks of the second and fourth quarters. That unit is his most productive.

After that group pulled the Kings from 17 points down to within 89-83 with 4:09 left, Adelman returned to Chris Webber and Peja Stojakovic, neither of whom had made shots consistently. With 3:55 left, Adelman subbed Doug Christie for Evans, whose energy, athleticism and aggression played a big role in the comeback.

Webber promptly hit a jumper to close within 89-85 with 3:44 left. Go figure.

But Webber quickly picked up his fifth and final fouls, and Stojakovic never took another shot.

Adelman said returning to his All-Star forwards wasn't a difficult decision.

"Sometimes people think you make decisions (solely) on that particular game, and that's not always true and not always what goes right," Adelman said.

"When do you bring back Peja and Webb? Those guys have been through a lot of games and a lot of games down the stretch. And some of those guys (who were) out there haven't been through it.

"Either you put (Stojakovic and Webber) in there, or you don't put them back at all because then they have been sitting a long time. You've got to make decisions based on what you feel comfortable with. People can second-guess all they want. I don't know if it would have been any different."

That's the rub. No one knows until the game concludes. And Adelman must also deal with the mentalities of his players, especially those he knows will likely - and eventually - determine the team's success.

"Webb missed a lot of shots, a lot of open shots," Adelman said of Webber, who finished 6 of 21 from the field. "And he comes right in (in the fourth) and makes his first jumper. I don't know. What do you say?

"Do I think Peja is going to miss his next shot if it's open? No, I don't think that. I've got trust in those guys.

"Sometimes you like to roll the dice, and I thought about it. In the second quarter, I left those guys out a long time while the young guys were making a nice run. You've just got to make a decision you think is best at the time."

And even the most complex coaching decision seems clear - when it works.

About the writer:

• The Bee's Martin McNeal can be reached at mmcneal@sacbee.com.

[/font]

 

[grun]

It's a tough one. From the armchair it's quite easy to say Adelman should have stuck with the group that got us back. Sam Mitchell did it with the Raptors earlier in the season with some success when Vince and co. were playing like crap. But if you are Adelman, and you got 2 all star calibre players sitting on the bench, its got to be hard to resist putting them back in - even with the games they were having.

 

[4cwebb]

"Adelman went with Darius Songaila, Kevin Martin and Maurice Evans - primarily with Brad Miller and Mike Bibby - for large chunks of the second and fourth quarters. That unit is his most productive."

I'm just curious as to the statistics used by the writer to make the last statement in the above text. Is this true?

As for putting Chris and Peja back in the game, that's a tough spot for any coach -- your two All Star forwards haven't been playing well, but more often than not they play well, and your team is right on the cusp of completing a comeback. Logic would seem to dictate that the All Stars always get a second (or third or fourth) chance to right the wrongs they had committed earlier in the game, so I don't think Adelman was in the wrong for putting both of those guys back in the game in the 4th.

 

[Bricklayer]

No, there was a difference the other night -- Webb and Peja weren't just having bad games. They are having bad games, sure, you have an argument. Great players can pull it altogether for one last push. But the problem was that both guys looked like they ahd been shot with a tranquilzer gun before the game -- they had absolutely no energy, and that was a huge part of why they wre sucking.

Putting those two players abck in with absolutely zero energy was a low percentage decision in this case. Not asking a guy who's shooting bad to hit one. That's fine, and Arco boobirds be damned. But asking somebody who just doesn't have it, has no spark, no energy, no nothing to come in and summon up a big push. That's not likely. It was a physical problem with those guys as much as anything. And once you know that, its like putting a guy with an injury back into the game. You KNOW he's hurt, that he's not 100%, and he's not going to be 100% for you tthat night, so why do it after the injury has caused him to struggle all night long?

P.S. The miller/Songaila/Evans/martin/Bibby unti doesn't even show up on 82games.com as one of our Top 20 5-man units in minutes, and could really only have come into existence in the last 3-4 games anyway. So maybe what Marty wanted to say was that it was our most effective last night.

 

[quick dog]

I think there is one thing that can be said about Rick Adelman. He is absolutely predictable. Also, in the face of public criticism, and even "dogging" by Sacramento fans, his career win-loss record is his strong suit. It is nearly impossible to argue with success. That said, many fans, like myself, believe that he plays it too close to the vest. I believe his has a genetic encodement issue. He may be completely correct in his basic coaching style and game-time judgements, but to some fans, his conservative style is annoying and raises questions after every questionable loss. A few observations to further illustrate my point.

Great generals, or at least famous winners, seldom "played it close to the vest." The United States and Great Britain probably extended the war in Germany by four to six months due to lack of aggressiveness and decisiveness. The infamous Battle of Arnhem (A Bridge Too Far), Netherlands, was a prime example of inept and pondering leadership in the north-western European theater of WWII.

In fact, government bureaucrats, and the US military is really just a violent bureaucracy, almost never take politcal chances in a effort to optimize efficiency and truly solve major problems. There are few rewards in the "bureaucracy" for the disparate bureaucrat that creates something lasting and good by taking chances. That is precisely why bureaucracies are typically slow and inefficient. Rick Adelman thinks like a bureaucrat.

I'll bet Rick Adelman could beat me in chess because I tend to play aggressively and take offensive chances. Great chess players tend to be careful and conservative. They always cover themselves defensively before attacking. On the other hand, I'll bet that I could beat Adelman in a wide-open and complex battle. I submit that basketball is more like a field battle than a chess game.

In my opinion, that is the basic struggle for ideas going on here with the Sacramento Kings fan-base. Adelman is an excellent coach, and his career win-loss record clearly proves that assertion. Nevertheless, a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks still believe that the Kings might do even better with some imaginative coaching. The only thing we doubters ask, and we really have no right or expectations to make such requests, is that coach Adelman take a few chances. Show some frigging imagination.

A loss is still a loss, but it might be fun to see some untested scrubs win a game or two. I see nothing wrong with telling your prima donna players that they are under-performing on any given night, and sit their lethargic butts on the bench to watch the Bench Mob for extended minutes. I think there are ancillary reasons to do so, but that's another topic.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Well at least this finaly puts to rest the persistant rumor that Rick makes substutions based on calls to Miss Cleo and a Ojiui board.

 

[VF21]

A loss is still a loss, but it might be fun to see some untested scrubs win a game or two. I see nothing wrong with telling your prima donna players that they are under-performing on any given night, and sit their lethargic butts on the bench to watch the Bench Mob for extended minutes. I think there are ancillary reasons to do so, but that's another topic.

And yet, should RA do that and NOT win the game, the screams of the Monday-morning quarterbacks could be heard on Mars. How could he leave the top players on the bench and let a bunch of nobodies lose the game for us? (Name of high $$$ player here) could have worked himself out of his problems IF ONLY he hadn't been pulled for a bleeping bench player!!!

RA goes with the percentages. He makes his choises based upon his years of experience and what he truly believes will work the best. The fact he is going to the bench MORE this year is indicative, perhaps, that he has talked about this with people he respects and his bosses, and has come to the conclusion that you have to work with your rookies during the season if you want to be able to depend on them in any manner in the playoffs. (And, of course, the injury to Bobby.)

If you look back at Adelman's rotation tendencies over the years, I think we have to give him credit for going deeper into the bench more often this season than he has for quite a while. We can't expect too drastic a change, nor do I believe we really want him to change that much.

Sure, there will be times when we really think he could have done things differently. And I'm sure on occasion he looks back and thinks the same thing. But, in the heat of the battle, you tend to go on your feel for the situation at hand, and I still think RA is making the right choices the great majority of times.

Just my three cents...

 

[AriesMar27]

we all know that you're right vf.... we would have started at least 3 fire adelman threads that would be merged into one by now...

 

[eflat]

And yet, should RA do that and NOT win the game, the screams of the Monday-morning quarterbacks could be heard on Mars. How could he leave the top players on the bench and let a bunch of nobodies lose the game for us? (Name of high $$$ player here) could have worked himself out of his problems IF ONLY he hadn't been pulled for a bleeping bench player!!!

Y'know, in the case of the Toronto game, I don't think that would've been the case. I think RA would've been praised for showing some...umm...gumption and taking a chance.

But, had he left the bench in and won, then he'd have problems. He'd have players with hurt feelings, thinking the coach didn't have confidence in them, resentful, etc. And the next time a game situation got iffy, fans/media would expect him to bench the starters, and the starters would be waiting to just be taken out, etc.

 

[VF21]

we all know that you're right vf.... we would have started at least 3 fire adelman threads that would be merged into one by now...

What is it you're trying to say?

 

[quick dog]

Again, the results of a loss with scrubs in the game, as perceived by the fans, would depend on the personality of the fan. I would applaud his risk-taking. Others would condem him for not playing the odds. I just thought of another example of my thesis.

Since 1986 (I think it was 1986), when we had near-record flows on the American River, the bureaucrats at the Department of Water Resources have played it safe. They always release lots of water from Folsom, Oroville, and Shasta Dams in the early Spring just to avoid the possibility of another near-flood situation. They really got bitched-out by the second-guessers after the 1986 season when the levees were above maximum levels. DWR could not release enough water fast enough in the late Spring to accomodate unusually heavy and late storms and snow melt.

Consequently, they run all the reservoirs low every year so as to avoid potential flood situations. Unfortunately, the State usually suffers water shortages in the FAll season because the authorities didn't catch enough water. DWR dumps perfectly good water to avoid potential flood conditions. Society never rewards the water people for providing enough water, but the whiners raise hell with them if we almost have floods.

It's easier for Adelman to play the book percentages than to operate outside the friendly confies of normality. Wimp.

 

[KP]

Again, the results of a loss with scrubs in the game, as perceived by the fans, would depend on the personality of the fan. I would applaud his risk-taking. Others would condem him for not playing the odds. I just thought of another example of my thesis.

Since 1986 (I think it was 1986), when we had near-record flows on the American River, the bureaucrats at the Department of Water Resources have played it safe. They always release lots of water from Folsom, Oroville, and Shasta Dams in the early Spring just to avoid the possibility of another near-flood situation. They really got bitched-out by the second-guessers after the 1986 season when the levees were above maximum levels. DWR could not release enough water fast enough in the late Spring to accomodate unusually heavy and late storms and snow melt.

Consequently, they run all the reservoirs low every year so as to avoid potential flood situations. Unfortunately, the State usually suffers water shortages in the FAll season because the authorities didn't catch enough water. DWR dumps perfectly good water to avoid potential flood conditions. Society never rewards the water people for providing enough water, but the whiners raise hell with them if we almost have floods.

It's easier for Adelman to play the book percentages than to operate outside the friendly confies of normality. Wimp.

Glass half empty , Glass half full. You say Tomato I say.. you get the idea. I would say he took more of a risk in putting Webb and Peja back in considering how bad they played. He knew if they lost momentum he would catch heat from the Haters. He made his decision based on his, and his assistant coaches experience/knowledge, not caring about what anybody else,(Who have never coached a pro basketball game in their life) thought. If he wouldn't have done what he thought was right... That would have been wimpy!

 

[keflanag]

But, had he left the bench in and won, then he'd have problems. He'd have players with hurt feelings, thinking the coach didn't have confidence in them, resentful, etc. And the next time a game situation got iffy, fans/media would expect him to bench the starters, and the starters would be waiting to just be taken out, etc.

FINALLY!!! Someone has hit it right on the nose. The mindset of your starters and major contributors is SOOOOO much more important than whether or not you win one Eastern conference, back-to-back, road game against a team you won't see again until next season. He has to show his players that even if they are having a bad game, he still trusts them to pull it out. The next time Peja or Chris is having a bad game, he can focus on playing well instead of worrying about when the coach is going to yank him out of the game.