Who'd have thunk it?Yeah, I don’t want to be snarky, but it turns out that missing 3 starters and your two best offensive creators makes your offense bad.
Who'd have thunk it?Yeah, I don’t want to be snarky, but it turns out that missing 3 starters and your two best offensive creators makes your offense bad.
Yet they still won missing three starters and Sacramento is a decent team. This game reminded me of a game against Charlotte early in the schedule two seasons ago when Kyrie and Hayward were both out. They won like 90-87 or something like that. Couldn’t put the ball in the basket but played tough defense and somehow pulled out a win. These guys just grind it out. The Jays becoming consistent 20 PPG scorers helps too.The Celtics really struggled at both ends down the stretch last night. The "let's keep going to Tatum and Brown for closely guarded midrange turnaround jumpers" offense let Sacramento climb back into the game. Sacramento was getting open looks from three down the entire stretch, too. The absence of Walker, Hayward, and Theis really stood out.
It’s a quality look with 2 seconds left; a worse one with 6 seconds or whatever they had. Context matters a ton when assessing shot quality.The shot Tatum missed at the end was nearly identical to the shot that everyone loved a couple weeks ago when he buried it for the win.
Word. The worst matchup on the floor at that time was Tatum trying to take Barnes off the dribble, and that's what he was fixing to do before the timeout.It's amazing they cracked 100 pts. Also, it's unfair to lump Jaylen in with Tatum who was simply terrible in the final three minutes. His final shot was ass, the two twos he took before that were shit, and Stevens had to call a TO with 13 seconds left because he backed himself up to the half court line where it looked like his plan was to try to take his man off the dribble forty feet from the basket.
Maybe I misheard Stevens postgame, but he didn't call the TO because Tatum did that on his own, he called the TO because the play was set to get an immediate drive for a layup and if that didn't happen because of the look the defense showed, then to back out, call another TO and reset. In other words, Tatum was given the option to drive if it was there, or back out and they'd call another TO. If that's the case, then Tatum made the smart decision.and Stevens had to call a TO with 13 seconds left because he backed himself up to the half court line where it looked like his plan was to try to take his man off the dribble forty feet from the basket.
Honestly in late clock situations like that, they should be looking for the Jaylen drive+fadeaway a lot more. It has a chance of generating a layup or a foul, and if that fails is a better shot than most of what Tatum has in his bag. Plus he can get it off against almost anyone.Word. The worst matchup on the floor at that time was Tatum trying to take Barnes off the dribble, and that's what he was fixing to do before the timeout.
I get that Tatum KNOWS that he has the alpha scorer gene. But he's just not that guy yet. He's still not aware enough of his limitations. This is an area where he's behind Brown.
1. Rookie. 2. Cold off the bench. 3. Minutes 4. Patience. 5. Eventual payoffI'm confused by how awful GW has been on offense this season. SSS, but 26% on the season? A lot of those have been 3s - which he definitely needs to work on (and I'm sure he has been).
Ah ok, that makes sense. The idea of Tatum trying to make something happen that far from the basket made me queasy at the time.Maybe I misheard Stevens postgame, but he didn't call the TO because Tatum did that on his own, he called the TO because the play was set to get an immediate drive for a layup and if that didn't happen because of the look the defense showed, then to back out, call another TO and reset. In other words, Tatum was given the option to drive if it was there, or back out and they'd call another TO. If that's the case, then Tatum made the smart decision.
I wonder if there is a cut off point where they decide to just have him ditch the 3 point shot. I'm sure we aren't even close to it but if he's like 0/100 from deep the discussion has to come up. He's someone who could have value without a 3 but he obviously has way more with it.I'm confused by how awful GW has been on offense this season. SSS, but 26% on the season? A lot of those have been 3s - which he definitely needs to work on (and I'm sure he has been).
There’s just so much reason to think he can do it that I don’t know whether they will. It’s probably like Smart, where they treat it as a multi-year project and let him work on it in game for a few attempts a game.I wonder if there is a cut off point where they decide to just have him ditch the 3 point shot. I'm sure we aren't even close to it but if he's like 0/100 from deep the discussion has to come up. He's someone who could have value without a 3 but he obviously has way more with it.
Agreed.Jaylen is making better decisions at the moment and certainly is way more likely both to get by his guy and to get fouled.
What Jayson has going to him is that he's a lot less likely to get blocked. He's way longer and a bit shiftier in place. And at the end of the day, he has a little more of the secret sauce.
If there are 18 seconds left, it's an interesting debate. I'd rather have JB taking his guy off the dribble. But if it's 3 seconds left, JT is the better option.
What bothered me was the though of JT taking Barnes off the dribble. Whether that was his idea, Brad's, or the ball just ended up there, it was the worst possible option.
they did win a game with 3 starters out.Wanamaker has been pretty awful at the end of close basketball games, at least the last 3. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wanted Waters to stay in the game over him last night but I get why that didn't happen.
Also, do other people think this team is deep? I just don't see it. It has potential to be in a year or two but I think it's lacking a player. The top 5 of Smart, Kemba, Tatum, Brown and Hayward is awesome. Kanter and Theis are decent rotational players. After that, we are relying on Brad Wanamaker, Semi and a lot of potential.
I don't think the bench is shallow either, just not particularly deep and lacking offensive fire power. If the team is fully healthy, I don't think that matters much.
Semi and Edwards lead the team in 3 point % off the bench at .333 if you exclude Marcus Smart. Smart is only at .342 himself. Is there a way to get Starter/Bench splits for 3 point %? The Celtics bench is probably hovering at 30%. If that continues, that will be a huge problem.
I don't know--when you win a game with 3 starters not playing, with no player on your team going off for 50+, a G League call-up helping steady the ship, it points to some depth.Also, do other people think this team is deep? I just don't see it.
I don't think that's true at all. Julius Randle is starting in the NBA.If he can’t hit the 3 he’s going to wash out of the league regardless of how smart he is or how well he defends. He’s a position tweeter as it is he’s not gonna justify a roster spot if he’s not able to learn to make that shot. It seemed fine in preseason so I think it will come around and he probably just needs to see a few go in so he can relax.
I think the depth is adequate, but uneven. The Celtics have been able to continue playing well despite Hayward's injury, because of their depth in wings, but Walker's injury has strained the back court depth of the team. Wanamaker is a competent NBA backup guard, but his limitations really get exposed when he's on the court for extended minutes against starters, especially last night in crunch time. They really miss Terry Rozier for those minutes, but in fairness to Ainge's roster construction, Walker historically has been at a far lower risk of injury than Irving.I don't know--when you win a game with 3 starters not playing, with no player on your team going off for 50+, a G League call-up helping steady the ship, it points to some depth.
I agree with all of this except that I'm not sure that he needs to shelve the floater permanently. I think that he could turn it into a weapon long-term with reps.He's close to Hayward athletically (not as explosive, but longer), and generally more athletic than Doncic, although Doncic has that Harden super saiyan stopping ability and a better handle.
Tatum's realistic path probably looks like:
1. more strength
2. improved handle
3. More iso/PnR 3s off the dribble
4. Use the strength to substitute the Hayward (and now Jaylen) 10-15 foot fadeaway for his current floater. The floater seems harder for him to control, and doesn't have as much foul-drawing equity.
The game has slowed down for Brown on offense in a way that it hasn't quite yet for Tatum. He's really not far behind IMO and could theoretically "add" more control to his drives during the season. The up fake that drew the foul call is exactly the type of changeup that might keep people a bit more honest.I don't know how to justify it, but to my GAZE, Brown last night just seemed more in control. He was willing to hesitate/change speeds on his drive to create an overreaction, the little up and under move. The weirdest thing was late in the game his shots seemed softer on the rim - maybe more loft? How would that even be possible?
Doing the Lord's work, thanks.I moved 26 posts on Tatum's development to the Tatum thread.
A gentle reminder that the Celtics have 7 rookies on the 17man roster.I'd say we have the potential to have a deep team, but we're not there yet. Need the a couple of the Williams, Edwards and Waters to step up. GW and Edwards hitting shots would certainly help. Semi and Wanamaker are good depth against the right matchups, but aren't really impact players. Smart on the bench gives them one, but need one or two others to step up.
Yes, agree, and mini rant:Can we mention here that a noon game the day after Thanksgiving is stupid. Put the game at 7 or 730, what is the problem. If it’s hockey play another day.
It's a player driven sport. Watching players develop falls under that. It's funny because the games don't mean much but I'll watch 2 horrible teams play every day of the week. I can't say that about any other sport.Yes, agree, and mini rant:
I feel like everyone is rapidly catching on to what a joke the NBA regular season is. There are no stakes.
I'm as avid a fan as they come, and while I totally agree with your point that it's stupid, I can't bring myself to care. Half the time it feels like I'm watching, passionately, for the same reason I watch Summer League: to see how individual players develop so that I know what parts of whose game will be relevant when the actual games start in April.
Yeah, I like this way of thinking about it. Makes me care even less about results, but makes the process more fun than waiting for scores to spit out.It's a player driven sport. Watching players develop falls under that. It's funny because the games don't mean much but I'll watch 2 horrible teams play every day of the week. I can't say that about any other sport.
Celtics sure don't seem to play like there's no stakes. Maybe you should walk up to Smart and tell him the games don't matter.Yes, agree, and mini rant:
I feel like everyone is rapidly catching on to what a joke the NBA regular season is. There are no stakes.
I'm as avid a fan as they come, and while I totally agree with your point that it's stupid, I can't bring myself to care. Half the time it feels like I'm watching, passionately, for the same reason I watch Summer League: to see how individual players develop so that I know what parts of whose game will be relevant when the actual games start in April.
The noon start is very unfair to women fans who also like to shop on Black Friday.Can we mention here that a noon game the day after Thanksgiving is stupid. Put the game at 7 or 730, what is the problem. If it’s hockey play another day.
Dude. WTF is wrong with you?The noon start is very unfair to women fans who also like to shop on Black Friday.
Here's some advice---delete that.The noon start is very unfair to women fans who also like to shop on Black Friday.
That is ridiculous. Take a break from SoSH.The noon start is very unfair to women fans who also like to shop on Black Friday.
There is a lot of work to do in the regular season in terms of finding identity, especially for the Celtics. For that reason, I love watching, and have watched every minute of this year's games. But the actual W-L result from Friday's game really doesn't matter in the scheme of things. I like the NBA approximately 100x more than the NFL, but NFL games are way higher stakes, and it's obvious.Celtics sure don't seem to play like there's no stakes. Maybe you should walk up to Smart and tell him the games don't matter.
On the 11/22 Real Gm Radio podcast, Danny LeRoux and his guest, Ethan Sherwood Strauss, actually spent 10-15 mins discussing Tatum and appreciating his defensive growth. It was like they had read the Tatum thread right before the podcast. This is unlike the Hollinger/Duncan podcast, where Hollinger thinks Tatums defense is “nothing special” and Duncan just nods his head and agrees.Non-Kyrie observations:
Doris Burke is way, way better than most national commentators. She seems to know little Celtics things that aren't part of the national media hive mind yet, like Tatum’s defensive leap. Honestly, national people like Duncan/LeRoux could learn a lot from how she actually "watches" "games".
This team does such a better job handling the variance of basketball. They kept playing D when all the 3s were falling, made some minor adjustments to switch more, and weathered the storm. Runs happen in the NBA, and they just play through them for the most part. Last year's team looked like they had never seen a run in the NBA before, and couldn't handle not front-running.
I'm honestly a bit shocked whenever I read or listen to Hollinger that he got hired by an NBA team. It's like he's unable to do analysis that doesn't involve munging box-score stats.On the 11/22 Real Gm Radio podcast, Danny LeRoux and his guest, Ethan Sherwood Strauss, actually spent 10-15 mins discussing Tatum and appreciating his defensive growth. It was like they had read the Tatum thread right before the podcast. This is unlike the Hollinger/Duncan podcast, where Hollinger thinks Tatums defense is “nothing special” and Duncan just nods his head and agrees.
I find the lack of true analysis in the podverse pretty shocking. it makes me appreciate lurking at the Port Cellar.
Yeah, I should have added that the Lowe Post is one of my must listens. His recent Smart interview was just fantastic journalism.The Lowe Post is a very good NBA podcast. Zach and his guests just love hoops, they use analytics and their takes are fairly well informed. They have also been very bullish on the Celtics and a certain defensive minded stretch six in particular.
Doris gets it. I love when she does our games.Non-Kyrie observations:
Doris Burke is way, way better than most national commentators. She seems to know little Celtics things that aren't part of the national media hive mind yet, like Tatum’s defensive leap. Honestly, national people like Duncan/LeRoux could learn a lot from how she actually "watches" "games".