Celtics in 18-19

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
Hayward is playing poorly, but Kyrie's tendency to be a ball stopper is a bigger reason why the offense has been fizzling.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
I think the only way Draymond gets dealt is if he continues to escalate things with Durant but I confess that I would be tempted by such a deal given the age difference between Horford and Draymond.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
I did not watch a ton of hayward while he was in Utah. How far off is he now, frome where he was? Because when I watch him now, I think to myslef, meh - this guy shows some stuff, but he is nowhere near a max player or good enough to be the 2nd best player on a contender
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
I did not watch a ton of hayward while he was in Utah. How far off is he now, frome where he was? Because when I watch him now, I think to myslef, meh - this guy shows some stuff, but he is nowhere near a max player or good enough to be the 2nd best player on a contender
Physically he looks quite far off. He wasn't exactly a quick twitch athlete before, but right now he is struggling with quick twitch movements, stopping and starting, changing direction, etc. Interior shots are easy to block because he needs to load up more than he would, and he ends up taking fadeaway or pull-up type shots instead of being able to attack hard off one foot. Combined with the timing issues stemming from not playing for a year, and it's a recipe for a guy who looks like this so far.

But his basketball skills are clearly there. Very savvy, smart player. He knows what he wants to do and how to do it, but his body isn't there yet.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
I watched a YouTube clip of Hayward’s 2016-2017 season when we signed him and was quite surprised at how athletic he was. I’d say he’s like 60% today from where he was based on the highlights I saw. If he can get back to, say, 90%, he’s once again a max player.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I did not watch a ton of hayward while he was in Utah. How far off is he now, frome where he was? Because when I watch him now, I think to myslef, meh - this guy shows some stuff, but he is nowhere near a max player or good enough to be the 2nd best player on a contender
He isn't the same player physically nor is he playing the same role. I saw in another thread someone mentioning how they expect him to "dominate" later this year. If those are the expectations he will surely disappoint even if/when he returns to his old physical self as that simply is not his game.....nor is that the role he'll have in this offense.

What he was at the time of his signing was another Top-30 player who is efficient and savvy similar to a Horford in that manner.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
He isn't the same player physically nor is he playing the same role. I saw in another thread someone mentioning how they expect him to "dominate" later this year. If those are the expectations he will surely disappoint even if/when he returns to his old physical self as that simply is not his game.....nor is that the role he'll have in this offense.

What he was at the time of his signing was another Top-30 player who is efficient and savvy similar to a Horford in that manner.
That was me, in this thread (post #1100). If Gordon gets back to himself in 4-5 months it's not a stretch to imagine him dominating 2nd units in an efficient manner.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
I agree that a shakeup is needed with so much redundancy in this lineup. My issue is that I don't see the shakeup being within this roster due TO the redundancy. I don't want to play Horford at the 4 and I don't see Morris bringing much of a different skillset than Hayward as they both handle and score the ball. Maybe Smart with the starters? Rozier? To me this seems like shuffling the deck with the same personnel. I do expect a couple changes to the lineup as this is what Brad has access to at this time...….assuming little changes I then expect Ainge to try and do what is necessary to improve the team by the deadline.
I think I'd start Smart and maybe try Hayward off the bench and running the second unit.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I think I'd start Smart and maybe try Hayward off the bench and running the second unit.
That's where I would begin as well as Smart is the only perimeter option with that group who isn't actively looking for their shot now that he has gotten paid. For those who don't believe the contract implications toward a rookie contract players motivations, Smart's FG/36 have gone from over 11 per game each of the last 3 seasons to 7.3 this year.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,813
Anyone talking about this? (Sorry mods if wrong thread; I wasn't sure where to put it). Glen Davis predicts Durant to become a free agent, then go to Boston.

“Guys think about it,” Davis wrote, as pointed out by WBZ’s Adam Kaufman. “For real listen to what kd said earlier about Boston and (their) team and how they are a tough match for the warriors. Plus who talks about money at this time during the season. Then also uncle drew (Kyrie Irving) said 2 weeks ago saying I need a 15 year vet. It’s coming together for sure now. Especially seeing this fallout in the second half of that clippers game. The warriors will handle business this year but kd leaving. Cause believe it or not the lakers are coming and kd doesn’t want no part of Lebron when he’s full throttle.”
Clearly, at least some of this sounds off balance (I find it hard to believe that Durant is quaking over playing "Lebron when he's full throttle"), but if you just take the idea of Durant joining Boston, it's interesting. First, a big assumption: KD decides to leave Golden State. But if he did, what makes the most sense as his next move? Boston was on his short list during his first free agency, and he was apparently impressed by the organization. I read somewhere that's he's friendly with Kyrie. I know it would be a major headache figuring out how to pay him, and Kyrie both, but ... the salary cap has never stopped an NBA exec from acquiring a premier talent before; there's always a way to make it work.

If nothing else, a fun thing to dream about.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
Long term, Hayward coming off the bench is not best for the Celtics. It may be while he finds his rhythm and works his way through the minutes restriction. But his playmaking on the floor with Kyrie for as many minutes as possible is how this team achieves its ceiling.

The way he's playing right now, the best candidate to come off the bench is Tatum. He's the worst offender in terms of taking shots outside the flow of the offense. If he wants to hone his Carmelo impression, he should do it with the second unit.
Interesting, I think it's the opposite.

I'd rather have one of them on the floor at all times, rather than them play together a ton and having a bunch of minutes with neither of them on the floor.

If they get to where they're each playing 30 minutes, I'd want them playing 18 minutes with just Kyrie, 18 minutes with just Hayward, and 12 minutes with both.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
6,828
I think the great thing about the season is they have played poorly thus far, and are still tied for 3rd in the eastern conference. They will only get better.

Hayward just needs to keep playing and getting minutes - no big changes. They just need reps and practice
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
I think I'd start Smart and maybe try Hayward off the bench and running the second unit.
Yep, Smart or Baynes starting (depending on the matchup) instead of Hayward would make the most sense. Celtics would end up with a better offensive/defensive balance with both the starting unit and bench.

A depleted Bulls showed up at the Garden tonight and the C's starting unit played the 1st Quarter like garbage. The bench came in, turned it around, and the rout was on. Boxscore score junkies that don't follow the game will be misled by the final stats.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
Anyone talking about this? (Sorry mods if wrong thread; I wasn't sure where to put it). Glen Davis predicts Durant to become a free agent, then go to Boston.



Clearly, at least some of this sounds off balance (I find it hard to believe that Durant is quaking over playing "Lebron when he's full throttle"), but if you just take the idea of Durant joining Boston, it's interesting. First, a big assumption: KD decides to leave Golden State. But if he did, what makes the most sense as his next move? Boston was on his short list during his first free agency, and he was apparently impressed by the organization. I read somewhere that's he's friendly with Kyrie. I know it would be a major headache figuring out how to pay him, and Kyrie both, but ... the salary cap has never stopped an NBA exec from acquiring a premier talent before; there's always a way to make it work.

If nothing else, a fun thing to dream about.
Unless KD is willing to play for minimum/MLE or whatever its impossible unless its a trade
 

cheech13

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 5, 2006
1,608
Unless KD is willing to play for minimum/MLE or whatever its impossible unless its a trade
Technically it's not impossible. They'd have to renounce their free agents (including Irving, Horford and Rozier), which is not at all likely, but they could carve out the money if Durant was determined to sign with Boston.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Technically it's not impossible. They'd have to renounce their free agents (including Irving, Horford and Rozier), which is not at all likely, but they could carve out the money if Durant was determined to sign with Boston.
Or make it a sign & trade with Hayward and Brown going the other way.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
6,904
Concord
Technically it's not impossible. They'd have to renounce their free agents (including Irving, Horford and Rozier), which is not at all likely, but they could carve out the money if Durant was determined to sign with Boston.
Huh, I didn't realize that renouncing them would allow the team enough money to sign him, my bad. But which lineup do we like better? KD, Tatum, Brown, Hayward and Baynes(or maybe RW) or KI, Brown, Tatum, Hayward and Al? I started this with an argument for the current 5 but I cant get over the length of the KD version. Also, Hayward and AD are basically making the same...
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
They've still missed an ungodly amount of open threes.

Anyway, they *seem* to be correcting it, so tonight should be interesting.
 

Gash Prex

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 18, 2002
6,828
ESPN’s Kirk Goldsberry writing about the Celtics’ terrible offense this year.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/25283082/why-boston-celtics-offense-broken-nba

Short answer: This isn’t bad luck, it is terrible shot selection. The Celtics, as a team, are allergic to the paint and in love with low efficiency pull-up jumpers.

Nothing too surprising, really.
I was not impressed since there was no discussion of the open shot % - plus I wanted more numbers on there shot % in the paint as we seem to miss 50 layups a game.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I was not impressed since there was no discussion of the open shot % - plus I wanted more numbers on there shot % in the paint as we seem to miss 50 layups a game.
One thing that is noticeably different from last year is that we aren't getting the "easy" shots in transition because we don't have personnel on the floor to run with Kyrie and Hayward replacing Rozier and player-x's minutes. It reminds me a lot of the Doc years when we were "running our stuff" to get good looks but they weren't "easy" looks in transition. This isn't; a luck thing this is a personnel thing. Now, granted we have missed more open looks than we should however my point remains in that slugfest defensively focused teams generally do not play good offense as that is not where the focus lies.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
I was not impressed since there was no discussion of the open shot % - plus I wanted more numbers on there shot % in the paint as we seem to miss 50 layups a game.
If I had a life that would allow it, I'd love to go back to last year's winning streak versus this year's games and see if there really are marked differences between the shots being took (breaking out half-court versus transition).

My guess would be that the only player from last year really taking a substantial number of different shots is Tatum, and the rest of difference would be made up by adding Gordon.

Other than those two guys (and Baynes shooting from 3P to that, but that's a small number of shots), my guess would be that the rest of the guys are basically taking the same shots they did last year. But they aren't making them.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Tatum's shots aren't falling either. Last year he shot .438 from 10-16 and .420 from 16<3. This year, .273, .275. He is also taking 4.9% more shots from 10-<3 this year.

Considering he's shooting 40% from 3 and 90% from FT atm, not too worried about it.

Jaylen Brown is shooting twice as many 10-16 foot jump shots as last year (11.0% to 5.5%), but he is shooting less 16<3, (4.5% to 7.1%).

You also mentioned Baynes, and his shot chart has changed drastically. All his FG attempts now are within 3 feet or a 3 pointer at 37% and 48% respectively.

Rozier's shot selection has changed in the early going too. He's taking 7.9% less shots from inside 3 feet, while taking 4.9% more 10-16s, 8.2% more 16<3, and 6.6% less 3s. That is a really, really disgusting trend.

Marcus Smart's has changed a little too. He is taking 12% less shots from inside 3, but 14.6% more 3 pointers. Currently, 63% of his FGA are beyond the arc.

Marcus Morris is the anti Rozier. 3% more shots within 3 feet, 11.4% less shots from 3ft-<3pt, and 8.4% more 3s.

Horford is taking 9% more shots within 3, 12% less 3-10, 7.5% less 10-16, and 11% more 3s.

It's all SSS but outside of Rozier, all of those trends suggest they are taking better shots.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
If I had a life that would allow it, I'd love to go back to last year's winning streak versus this year's games and see if there really are marked differences between the shots being took (breaking out half-court versus transition).

My guess would be that the only player from last year really taking a substantial number of different shots is Tatum, and the rest of difference would be made up by adding Gordon.

Other than those two guys (and Baynes shooting from 3P to that, but that's a small number of shots), my guess would be that the rest of the guys are basically taking the same shots they did last year. But they aren't making them.
It's all SSS but outside of Rozier, all of those trends suggest they are taking better shots.
Are they really better shots though? I'll go back to my "open" shots not being the same as "easy" shots that come in rhythm. Shooting is about rhythm and there is a marked difference in how players are getting the shots they are taking this year compared to last. Maybe in-house teams have ways of quantifying these things but to the trained eye we are not getting these "easy" shots in rhythm at lease early on. I'm skeptical on whether much changes as I've stated from the get go. Are we playing as if we are entitled? Are we playing down to our competition? Tonight is going to tell us a lot about this team imo.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Are they really better shots though? I'll go back to my "open" shots not being the same as "easy" shots that come in rhythm. Shooting is about rhythm and there is a marked difference in how players are getting the shots they are taking this year compared to last. Maybe in-house teams have ways of quantifying these things but to the trained eye we are not getting these "easy" shots in rhythm at lease early on. I'm skeptical on whether much changes as I've stated from the get go. Are we playing as if we are entitled? Are we playing down to our competition? Tonight is going to tell us a lot about this team imo.
We really won't know anything until after Christmas anyway. A good or bad stretch of games can make a team appear better or worse than they are in the early going.

I'd be shocked if the C's aren't one of the best teams come January and if the Kings and Grizz are still in the playoff hunt.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I feel really good now about saying that while the Celtics wouldn't have the best player in any of the series in the East, they'd have the best offensive player in all of them. Kyrie is a god.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
This is the first time the Celtics have beaten Kawhi Leonard, they are 1-9 against him.

Gordon Hayward went 39 minutes, so I guess the minutes restriction real is done. He also led the team with a +18. (While Marcus Smart was somehow a -17).

They went with an interesting look down the stretch: Horford, Morris, Tatum, Hayward, and Kyrie played the whole overtime and almost all of the last 5 minutes of the game. At one point, Toronto went smaller (put in VanVleet with Lowry) but Stevens stuck with the bigger unit and it paid off. Haven’t seen much of Hayward at the 2 this year, but it was magic tonight.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
This is the first time the Celtics have beaten Kawhi Leonard, they are 1-9 against him.

Gordon Hayward went 39 minutes, so I guess the minutes restriction real is done. He also led the team with a +18. (While Marcus Smart was somehow a -17).

They went with an interesting look down the stretch: Horford, Morris, Tatum, Hayward, and Kyrie played the whole overtime and almost all of the last 5 minutes of the game. At one point, Toronto went smaller (put in VanVleet with Lowry) but Stevens stuck with the bigger unit and it paid off. Haven’t seen much of Hayward at the 2 this year, but it was magic tonight.
As far as big units go, that's an insanely stretchy/quick one. Tatum was guarding Lowry down the stretch, and doing a damn good job of it.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
20,539
Hayward looked amazing tonight. Keep giving the guy minutes, the shots will fall in time.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
I think that lineup was about getting Morris onto Kawhi instead of Brown.

In terms of Hayward vs Brown they were sort of running Hayward at point forward tonight. It was the best he’s looked to me. He really helped the offense getting into the paint and moving the ball.

Far and away the best game of the year. Still far from perfect but they got into the paint and it made a lot of difference.
 

Eagle3

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
574
This is the first time the Celtics have beaten Kawhi Leonard, they are 1-9 against him
He's a great player and all, but that 0 for 9 prior to tonight is a Spurs thing more than Kawhi. The Spurs have had the Cs number for 20 years. They dominated the Celtics in the Robinson-Duncan era (18 in a row!), then it evened out with Pierce/KG. The Spurs were still one of the best teams in the league when Kawhi came into the league, and the Celtics were declining at the end of the Pierce/KG era followed by the full rebuild. So most of those 9 games were a mismatch. Then he was injured last year when the Cs finally had the guns to compete with them.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
He's a great player and all, but that 0 for 9 prior to tonight is a Spurs thing more than Kawhi. The Spurs have had the Cs number for 20 years. They dominated the Celtics in the Robinson-Duncan era (18 in a row!), then it evened out with Pierce/KG. The Spurs were still one of the best teams in the league when Kawhi came into the league, and the Celtics were declining at the end of the Pierce/KG era followed by the full rebuild. So most of those 9 games were a mismatch. Then he was injured last year when the Cs finally had the guns to compete with them.
So your argument is that the reason the Celtics couldn’t beat Kawhi Leonard, is not because of Kawhi, but because they can’t beat teams with the letters SPURS on the uniform going back 20 years. And your evidence is that the Celtics finally beat the spurs last year when KL was injured.

Im not the model poster but can we please think before we post.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
So your argument is that the reason the Celtics couldn’t beat Kawhi Leonard, is not because of Kawhi, but because they can’t beat teams with the letters SPURS on the uniform going back 20 years. And your evidence is that the Celtics finally beat the spurs last year when KL was injured.

Im not the model poster but can we please think before we post.
Except that he’s right, Boston went 6-2 against the Spurs during the height of the Pierce/Garnett/Allen era. Leonard arrived in the NBA during the strike-shortened year, which was the last gasp of that squad.

The 2013 Celtics were an oooold team, and then the rebuilding started. So, yes, the Spurs star-studded team handily beat a rebuilding Celtics squad. And last year, when the rebuild was complete, Leonard was on vacation.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Except that he’s right, Boston went 6-2 against the Spurs during the height of the Pierce/Garnett/Allen era. Leonard arrived in the NBA during the strike-shortened year, which was the last gasp of that squad.

The 2013 Celtics were an oooold team, and then the rebuilding started. So, yes, the Spurs star-studded team handily beat a rebuilding Celtics squad. And last year, when the rebuild was complete, Leonard was on vacation.
No. The Celtics didn’t lose to Kawhi because David Robinson was tough back in the day. And they didn’t lose because the Celtics were on a downswing when the spurs were on an upswing *totally independent of Kawhi leonard*. They lost to Kawhi’s teams because, with Kawhi on them, Kawhi’s teams were better than the Celtics.

I look forward to the Celtics hopefully beating up on Kawhi now that the Celtics have a super star roster. And while I presume Eagle3 just posted too fast without thinking, you’re actually taking the time to defend elementary school logic.
 
Last edited:

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
No. The Celtics didn’t lose to Kawhi because David Robinson was tough back in the day.
What the hell does David Robinson have to do with Leonard? Aside from nothing. (And, no, the other poster never made that claim, he just pointed out that the Duncan/Robinson squads beat up on the rebuilding Celtics as well. He could have gone back even further, because the Robinson/Elliot teams beat up on Boston’s Rebuilding Error™ teams as well.)

And they didn’t lose because the Celtics were on a downswing when the spurs were on an upswing *totally independent of Kawhi leonard*. They lost to Kawhi’s teams because, with Kawhi on them, Kawhi’s teams were better than the Celtics.
You mean a title contender is better than a rebuilding team? Truly your basketball analytical skills are first rate.
 
Last edited:

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,478
Melrose, MA
As far as big units go, that's an insanely stretchy/quick one. Tatum was guarding Lowry down the stretch, and doing a damn good job of it.
I think that lineup was about getting Morris onto Kawhi instead of Brown.

In terms of Hayward vs Brown they were sort of running Hayward at point forward tonight. It was the best he’s looked to me. He really helped the offense getting into the paint and moving the ball.

Far and away the best game of the year. Still far from perfect but they got into the paint and it made a lot of difference.
It makes me think that the odd guy out in this group, the one who just doesn't fit despite his talent, is Rozier.

In last year's playoffs, 16% of the minutes (80% if you divide by 5) went to Rozier (6'2") or Larkin (5'11"). Rozier actually led the team in playoff minutes, but unlike last year's team they weren't running out lineups with multiple small guys at a time. Among the guys who played significant minutes, Smart (6'4") was the only one under 6'7". And Smart is his his own kind of guy - uniquely capable of matching up with bigger guys (plus getting a decent chunk of his minutes as Rozier's backup and the shortest guy on the floor).

This year is different, because Kyrie is back. Taller than Rozier but not a Smart-like defender who can at least make a credible attempt at guarding anyone. They also have Wanamaker, but he's been limited to 15 garbage minutes. Everyone else who plays is 6'7" and up. Kyrie and Rozier, between them, have played 22% of the minutes, or 110%. The Celtics almost always have one of them on the floor and sometimes both.

I wonder if that just isn't going to work.

Looking at lineups, on basketball reference:

  • Irving's worst 2-main combination is with Rozier (102 minutes, net rating of -8.6).
  • Irving has also played 11 minutes in a 5-man unit with Horford, Hayward, Tatum, and Rozier (his most common 5 man unit with Rozier) that has been absolutely pulverized (net rating -45.5).
  • Last season, Irving and Rozier had a net rating of +1.0 in 537 minutes, but Irving had only 2 worse 5-man units (Morris, +0.6, Ojeleye, -2.5).
  • Rozier's worst 2-man lineup is actually with Horford (-12.9 in 126 minutes), wiith the Kyrie one breing second worst.
  • Last season, Rozier had 2 5-man units worse than the Irving +1.0: Larkin (-0.7) and Ojeleye (-6.8)

Rozier is incredibly valuable to this team as an insurance policy against Kyrie getting injured or walking next year. (Could the Celtics be successful with a Smart/Wanamaker PG combo?) He's unquestionably an NBA starter, talent and production wise, though I think he may need to have teammates who can help with running the offense. And he might be a valuable option for the C's against teams with small, dynamic guards, like Portland.

But does the need to find minutes for him behind (or alongside) Kyrie take them out of what they do best?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,212
The reason older spurs teams have some relevance (and only some) is that the coach and overall philosophy—both on court and roster construction—is fairly similar for a long time. The Celts have been all over the map in that timeframe, and the relevance of the above is limited. But saying it’s about the name “spurs” on the roster misses the part which is salient here
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
I think that lineup was about getting Morris onto Kawhi instead of Brown.

In terms of Hayward vs Brown they were sort of running Hayward at point forward tonight. It was the best he’s looked to me. He really helped the offense getting into the paint and moving the ball.

Far and away the best game of the year. Still far from perfect but they got into the paint and it made a lot of difference.
Frankly, and I say this as a huge JB fan, I think they did this because JB is not playing well on offense.

Funny that JB's usage % is down only marginally from last year (21.4% to 21..1%) but it seems he's getting a lot fewer touches. I hope they figure things out with him because he's still their best perimeter defensive player.
 

Eagle3

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
574
What the hell does David Robinson have to do with Leonard? Aside from nothing. (And, no, the other poster never made that claim, he just pointed out that the Duncan/Robinson squads beat up on the rebuilding Celtics as well. He could have gone back even further, because the Robinson/Elliot teams beat up on Boston’s Rebuilding Error™ teams as well.)



You mean a title contender is better than a rebuilding team? Truly your basketball analytical skills are first rate.
Bingo. Thanks nighthob, you caught my drift exactly. It's way more a timing thing between the organizations than it being attributed to a single player. The Cs did well against the Duncan era Spurs when they had the Big 3 at their peak, but before and after that the Spurs have dominated them during rebuilds. So the 2 long winning streaks aren't specifically attributable to Duncan or Kawhi individually. The Spurs organization as a whole has destroyed every mediocre Celtics team for the last 20 years.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
They went with an interesting look down the stretch: Horford, Morris, Tatum, Hayward, and Kyrie played the whole overtime and almost all of the last 5 minutes of the game. At one point, Toronto went smaller (put in VanVleet with Lowry) but Stevens stuck with the bigger unit and it paid off. Haven’t seen much of Hayward at the 2 this year, but it was magic tonight.
Well, Jaylen Brown was having a bad night and so was Rozier. Meanwhile, Hayward was making game-changing defensive plays. It's the first time I've seen that from him as a Celtic.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
What the hell does David Robinson have to do with Leonard? Aside from nothing. (And, no, the other poster never made that claim, he just pointed out that the Duncan/Robinson squads beat up on the rebuilding Celtics as well.
He literally did. Right here.
He's a great player and all, but that 0 for 9 prior to tonight is a Spurs thing more than Kawhi. The Spurs have had the Cs number for 20 years. They dominated the Celtics in the Robinson-Duncan era (18 in a row!), then it evened out with Pierce/KG.
You can keep arguing loudly, but you’re still aggressively wrong. There’s even a logical poster taking your side, sort of, but PKB does so by acknowledging the very thing you just said never happened.

The reason older spurs teams have some relevance (and only some) is that the coach and overall philosophy—both on court and roster construction—is fairly similar for a long time. The Celts have been all over the map in that timeframe, and the relevance of the above is limited. But saying it’s about the name “spurs” on the roster misses the part which is salient here
If you had to weigh all the factors in why Kawhi Leonard’s teams have beaten the Celtics, I don’t think continuity of system dating back to David Robinson has even “some” relevance. We’re talking two decades. Too much changed over time. The actual players on the court are what mattered.

You mean a title contender is better than a rebuilding team? Truly your basketball analytical skills are first rate.
I assumed I didn’t need to spell out my logic for you but clearly I was wrong as you’re having difficulty here.

Everyone knows that the players on the teams beyond Kawhi matter. This is obvious. But how much did Kawhi have to do with his teams beating the Celtics consistently? Was it, and I’m quoting here, “more about the Spurs than Kawhi”? Or if you had taken Kawhi off all of those teams would the Celtics been 5-4 or 3-6 or 4-5 in those games? Something like the latter is obviously correct. He’s easily one of the best players in the game and was a high impact player for many of those 9 wins. It was not just about “the spurs”, Kawhi was a very relevant factor as he was usually the best player on the court.

You may argue this is all obvious at which point I’ll just point out that you’re the one arguing against something so obvious. I suggest we all move on instead.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
Frankly, and I say this as a huge JB fan, I think they did this because JB is not playing well on offense.

Funny that JB's usage % is down only marginally from last year (21.4% to 21..1%) but it seems he's getting a lot fewer touches. I hope they figure things out with him because he's still their best perimeter defensive player.
I think it was about the defense. The had Smart on Kawhi for a while and I don’t think there’s a good argument that Smart was out there over Jaylen for offense. The Smart on Kawhi experiment went poorly, he scored at will. Brad switched to Morris and it went very well.
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,700
Saint Paul, MN
Any chance that Marcus Morris resigns here next year? I would think not, but he offers at this time what everyone hopes Jaylen Brown will offer some day. He has got to be one of the most underpaid player in the league right now?
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Any chance that Marcus Morris resigns here next year? I would think not, but he offers at this time what everyone hopes Jaylen Brown will offer some day. He has got to be one of the most underpaid player in the league right now?
That's funny, I literally just logged on to post something asking about re-signing Morris. His attitude change is for real, as is his improved shot selection. I'd FAR rather have him for 3-4 years at $10-14M than Rozier for really any price. Being able to play big while staying skilled gives so many advantages that I have to imagine they're looking at ways to bring him back.

Put another way: for the next 3-4 years of championship contention, would you rather have Mook or Smart? The money will likely be similar, and Mook adds so much more by being a plus offensive player.