This is like when AC Green had his games-played streak. You cannot tell me some of those games during the latter part of his career didn't involve situations where he came in for a few minutes at best. I honestly think you're blowing this kinda out of proportion because judging by the box score, Mike Brown had opportunities to slide Z at the end of the 1st when they were leading by 9, sometime in the 2nd, and somewhere at the end of the game.
Yes, and those games diluted the achievement. Obviously. The difference here is that its not a consecutive games streak. Ilgauskas didn't have to play on Saturday to get his record. I would say people who are going after Mike Brown for this decision are blowing it out of proportion. Ilgauskas got his record. He felt slighted (probaby more about him realizing that he is no longer the key figure in the rotation that he once was), but he'll get over it.
I'll agree to disagree and go after Brown's assistants, instead, for not remind Brown himself of the potential achievement. :grin:
When did you hear JVG or RA say we'll go small ball, then give Yao or Mutombo meaningful time? The whole concept of "small ball" is to have small players on the court (hence the "small" term). How can it be small ball when you have a 7 footer on the court? Point is, Brown said they'd go small to counter the Mavs, then played Shaq a lot of time. You can't say you didn't play Z because you went small, but then you look at the game log and freakin' Shaq had meaningful minutes. If Brown can find some PT for Shaq, how can he not give PT to Z? The goal of the Cavs is to win a championship, its not to win that particular game. In the greater scheme of things a game is insignificant. How does pissing your star player and your backup C get you closer to the championship? That game wasn't even close. There were a couple of instances the Cavs had a good lead (9+ pts). Why couldn't Big Z get some PT then? Is he so inept, so useless that putting him in over Shaq would result in -9 pts instantly? As for your comment regarding the meaningfulness of his milestone, he had his friends and family in the freakin' crowd. How the hell is that not meaningful? You actually think he would prefer to get his PT in a close game on the road? Wow, game is on the line-good time to celebrate and feel good about yourself there. Then he can go high-five himself Bogut style
Z has every reason to believe that he would break the record Sat night and have his friends and family in attendance. He's played at least 15 minutes in every single game this season, and to suddenly record the FIRST DNP OF HIS CAREER that same night is crazy. I'm a big fan of Z because he went from injury to injury, made major bank for doing almost nothing, and still came back to play after all he went through. It's amazing he's broken the record despite the injuries. Typically most players take the big pay day, stop trying, and flame out. He's been on this team through all the miserable seasons post-Price/Daugherty, pre-LBJ which is not easy. And by all accounts he seems like a very classy guy. I expect most other die hard Cavs fans have a soft spot for him. It's obvious it meant a lot to him: Unfortunately there seems more to it though: Cleveland.com
durvasa, again I appeal to the context since you did not reply to my take. Ilgauskas is NOT an end-of-the-bench kind of player. He is NOT this-game-you-see-him-this-game-you-don't kind of player. He is in the regular rotation EVERY game. As someone has pointed out, this is the very FIRST time in the season he did not play, and it happened right at the game when he was all excited about celebrating the record. Coincidence? You tell me. BTW, apparently Brown did not inform Big Z in advance that he was probably not going to play in the game plan.
You really think Mike Brown is so malicious that he purposely didn't play him because he was excited about his record? Of course it was a coincidence. I believe strongly that these records/stats should be incidental to what happens over the course of a game. Once players change how they play, or coaches change how they coach in order to set a record or accumulate certain stats, then those records/stats become less meaningful. There should be a separation there. Ilgauskas got the opportunity to play more minutes and have maybe have his best game of the season on the night he set the record. Isn't that better than setting the record by playing a few token minutes? The coaches and players job is to win the games, number one. As the records come, you can celebrate, but you shouldn't coach or play in order to set records.
Brown's got to allot 96 minutes to his front court positions over the course of the game. He decided he had a better chance of winning by giving Z's minutes to Varejao and other more athletic players, because when Gooden (Mavs starter) isn't on the floor the Mavs have 5 perimeter players. If you recall, it was the Mavs second unit which basically blew us out of the water. Expecting Ilgauskas to guard the 3-point line is only shooting yourself in the foot. Shaq had a more manageable defensive matchup against Gooden. Just because Brown decided Ilgausaks doesn't matchup well against their second team, that doesn't mean he should play Varejao 48 minutes. That would be crazy. You win championships by putting winning ahead of individual goals/achievements. If this decision by Brown bothers his players so much, if they're that emotionally fragile, then they can just forget about winning championships. Ilgauskas is a good guy, and he's humiliated that his first DNP-CD coincided with this game. Understandable. But the DNP-CD was justified from a basketball standpoint, so all the rest about setting individual records should not even enter into the picture.
I don't think he was malicious. But I also don't think he was unaware of the record thing. I think he was just inconsiderate, lacking people skill. If he really believed not playing Ilgauskas was a good plan against Dallas and he knew the excitement about the record, he should have the courtesy of communicating to Ilgauskas about it. Heck, even if the record thing didn't exist, a good coach would have communicated to a veteran rotation player about his plan of not playing him.
Coaches have different approaches with this probably, but in general I don't think its a good idea to tell a player he isn't going to play. Everyone on the bench needs to be mentally in the game and prepared to play if called upon. And maybe there was a conversation before the game to the effect that Ilgauskas may not get in. Apparently there was a communication gap there, and that's on both the coach and the player. I'll agree to that extent. But I don't fault Mike Brown for not playing him when the matchups don't favor it.
That was Z's gold watch moment. Brown's faux pas is the kind of act that can turn a team against their coach.
Well, we can agree to disagree. I do think that a good coach would tell his normal rotation players, especially a respected long time veteran, if he was going to change the rotation for a game plan. I don't think it would necessarily hamper the mental preparedness if you communicate it correctly. In fact, it should sharpen the players preparedness when they know exactly what your game plan is. The shock of being unexpectedly benched would likely have a negative effect on the player during the game. What if he did need Ilgauskas in the game at some situations, but found Big Z in a bad mental state because of that?
Is it confirmed that there was no dialogue between them beforehand? Perhaps Brown told him pregame what his plans were, and that Z may not get in. That would have been appropriate.
From this article: http://www.ohio.com/sports/cavs/78395497.html I guess Brown felt too smug about his "small ball" plan he plain forgot about Z. Then when Z became pissed at him he decided to send him a message by giving him his first DNP-CD of the season on the day he was supposed to be awarded.
So somehow Big Z was a bad matchup against the Mavs, but against PHX which is a faster and smaller team he's suddenly a good fit? What makes Z a liability on the Mavs but a good player against the Suns?
So you don't believe the very article you linked to and quoted? "When the first half ended, Ilgauskas reportedly told Brown that since he didn't see fit to play him in the first half, he didn't want to play the rest of the game."
I won't ever take Mike Brown's side when it comes to any coaching decision. I know it was years ago, but watching him stand idly by while one of his assistant coaches drew up a play in the last seconds of a playoff game will never leave my mind. Hey Mike Brown, you are the coach simply because Lebron wishes you to be so. Do not look a gift horse in the mouth.
Brown, however, denied that Ilgauskas asked the coach not to be put in the game during the second half in the Cavs' victory over the Mavericks. He said not playing him in the second half was also a coach's decision. "Z didn't say that to me," Brown said. Who knows!
The Suns actually use more post players in their rotation (Stoudemire, Collins, Clark, Lopez): http://popcornmachine.net/cgi-bin/gameflow.cgi?date=20091202&game=PHOCLE There are more opportunities there for Z to play. But the Mavs, because Dampier was out, are playing exclusively with guards, wings, or 3-point shooters when Gooden isn't in the game. And Gooden's minutes just wouldn't correspond with Z's, because he is a starter who mostly only plays the beginning of each half. The facts appear to be that Mike Brown chose not to play Ilgauskas in the first half because of the defensive matchups (totally legitimate), and Z got angry over it and told Brown he didn't want to play in the second half. If that's how it went down, I don't see how Brown can be blamed.
