I hope I'm not pointing out the patently obvious, but it seems clear in retrospect that the person the Celtics should have been "clearing minutes" for in the Blount trade was Ryan Gomes. Since being inserted into the starting lineup 7 games ago, here are his stats:
12.6 points per game
9.3 rebounds per game
60% shooting from the field
39 minutes per game
I think 40 minutes per game is a little unrealistic in terms of playing time for the rest of the season. As B noted a while ago, a good rotation for NBA big men often sees them playing 30-35 minutes per night to cut down on the wear and tear of a season. But Gomes's stats put him in some elite company. If he were to average 9 rebounds per game over the rest of the season, he'd be in the top 20 rebounders in the league. If he averaged 8 for the rest of the season, he'd still be in the top 30. And in terms of scoring, if he keeps it up at his current pace, he'd be in the top 70. Not bad for a guy who's the 4th offensive option on his team.
The question has been posed before (for example, here and here) but it's worth asking again. Exactly why didn't he get any playing time earlier in the season? I guess part of the reason was that they were trying to deal Blount and develop their first rounders. But even after Blount was gone, Gomes was only getting a few minutes per game until Perkison went down. Here's betting that won't be the case when they get healthy.
10 comments:
Sometimes players are good because they do little things in games, rather than because they have obvious physical skills, and perhaps these things don't always show up in practice. If a player like Gomes plays well in practice, the coach may think it's because he's giving 100% in a context in which everyone else is giving 80% -- I imagine most NBA players are not going all-out in practice everyday. So maybe Gomes was doing all these things in practice, and Rivers just figured with some reason that it wouldn't translate into gametime success.
My Dad was saying to me this morning that Gomes is a lot of fun to watch. I've got to figure out how to see some games.
Let me also repeat my suggestion in the other post that the team is playing better because Ricky Davis and Mark Blount are no longer around.
Ryan Gomes has been a lot of fun to watch, and I've really enjoyed how much the C's have been over-achieving this last week. That said, put me in the camp that is still dubious about how succesful an NBA career he's going to have.
In addition to T.S.'s comments I'll point out that Gomes has started to get playing time at a point in the season when most players are worn down and pacing themselves for the stretch run. By contrast Gomes rightfully sees this as a rare opportunity to make a statement.
A lot of his productivity has come from hustle and determination, which I love. In February of the NBA season hustle and determination can get you somewhere against a lottery-bound Zach Randolph who's on cruise control. In the playoffs or games that really matter it's very rare that one team out-hustles or out-works the other. Should the Celtics be good enough to go deep in the playoffs in a few years, Ryan Gomes is not going to out-work Rasheed Wallace at PF. There's good chance, though, that Wallace's superior interior and exterior games will eat Gomes for lunch.
It comes back to the same problem that caused Gomes to plummet in the draft. He still has not shown to strength to play PF against any team with motivated talent at that position. He also hasn't yet shown to the handle to create his own shot outside or the quickness to stay with SFs on defense.
If he stays a 'tweener his most like future is that of a 6-8th man, brought in off the bench for hustle and great team play when matchups allow. In Doc Rivers' offense-- which spaces the floor and keeps cutters moving in and out of the paint-- Gomes is a great fit. There's no reason he can't excel in that role, as long as Celtics fans don't get their expectations too high.
I will also add on Gomes that it would be possible to read too much into all the positive press he's been getting lately. The team has done surprisingly well in the last week, which has correlated with his getting more playing time. He's was a local college hero, which gives the press a natural feel-good story line.
None of this, however, means that Gomes is even significantly responsible for the Celtics recent success (he's not) or that he's as good as the press clippings make him sound (to be determined, but I'm keeping expectations modest).
I feel vaguely like I've been down this road with Jiri Welsch two years ago and Tony Allen last year. Like Gomes, both had/have real limitations to their games. What kind of role each plays for teams in the future is going to depend a lot on how well they can improve on their weaknesses.
Two words: Kevin Gamble.
But at the 50th pick in the draft, I'd be happy to get a tweener forward who hustles, etc. No one is talking about trading Kendrick Perkins or Al Jefferson because of Gomes.
"Where is Kevin Gamble now?" I hear someone wonder.
The other thought I've had watching the Celtics recently is that Jefferson and Perkins are not inherently good fits for the offense Doc has the team running. Both are (with different levels of skill) on-the-blocks low post players. Neither has any kind of dribble or feels comfortable doing more than taking set shots when they're more than 8' from the basket. Both look sometimes lost and uncertain when asked to make decisions about what the defense is doing and where to move the ball.
Such deficiencies make them poor fits for Doc's offense, which wants its PF/Cs in the high post or to the side of the lane. Their job is to make passes to other players cutting near the basket and/or take mid-ranged jump shots. It has been my assumption that this has been one reason (of many) why Doc was playing Raef and Blount over the young'uns at the start of the season: they're just better at what the team is doing.
Back to the point of this thread: Gomes is a great fit for this system. His understanding of the offense and what to do when are worlds ahead of Perkins and Jefferson currently. It also helps his game significantly to not have a bunch of hulking post players and their defenders clogging up the area under the basket. Once the hulks are back it will be interesting to see how he fares.
Your points about Gomes's success are all taken. And for the record, I never suggested that he was the reason they went 3-1 on this road trip. I personally think that was more of a "law of averages" thing than anything else. They've dropped a number of very close games this season. Sooner or later they were due to win one and string together a couple of nice wins.
But every team needs role players to round out the rotation, guys who can give you 20-30 minutes a night, grab some boards, and make cheap putback points. And that's Gomes to a T, at least right now.
What surprises me most about your post is that you're almost critical of Gomes for his hustle and determination (although you do laud him for it as well.) Would you rather have someone with hustle and determination who is going to try to improve, or someone like Mark Blount? I haven't run the numbers, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that Gomes could average Blount-esqe numbers for the rest of the season, even once Perkison returns.
As to the power issues, who knows? There are guys that develop into NBA bodies and ones that don't. But even if Gomes doesn't, let's say you end up with a back of the rotation hustle guy for the next 4-5 years who puts up 10 points and 7 boards a game on hustle alone. That looks pretty good, particularly for the 50th pick in the draft, eh?
Would you rather have someone with hustle and determination who is going to try to improve, or someone like Mark Blount?
If one thinks that the Mark Blounts of the world can find that hustle and determination if they just get a fire lit under them, then you're tempted to keeping going with the seven-foot stiffs.
But it's not just about effort -- it's also basketball sense, timing, savvy, and other skills that are hard to assess with a tape measure.
We completely agree that every team needs quality role players off the bench. If I was giving the impression that I was down on Gomes for looking like a good candidate for that, or for accomplishing so much through hustle and grit, I gave the wrong impression. I've loved watching his hustle and grit. The choice between his attitude and Blount's is no question.
Perhaps another way to make my observations about Gomes' physical limitations is that if Al Jefferson put together a week like Gomes just had I'd be far more excited. But this is because Jefferson has the physical tools to some day hold his own against the proverbial Rasheed Wallace. Whether he gets there or not is the $10,000 question.
I suspect Jefferson's hypothetical good week wouldn't get the same buzz from the press, however, in part because he isn't new, he isn't a local college boy made good, and its hard to write an engaging story about incremental improvement.
Post a Comment