Analysis of Celtics Games, '21-'22 Season
- Thread starter Imbricus
- Start date
Carrying this over a little from the game-thread, but people were making the very same argument when the team was below .500: e.g., that their record looked worse than it should be because they'd had some really rough shooting nights (or really months, in Horford and Tatum's case) and some bad luck/choking in late and close games. There were some genuine SNAFUs and there was also, like, RJ Barrett throwing it off the backboard for the win.
Happy to hear you came around on the Celtics defense, anyway. A defense of Tatum, Rob, Horford, Smart, and Jaylen: the only weakness is Jaylen mind floats off to think about chess or social justice every once in a while. And on offense -- it's still not the prettiest offense I've ever seen, but with Jaylen and Jayson consistently getting to the rim, there's plenty for Rob and others to clean up. If Jayson continues to stay hot, and they continue to make offense tough for other teams, well, this is a team primed for gritty playoff basketball.
I agree: we'll see how they fair against teams that aren't depleted, but I suspect they'll be very competitive. It's not easy to beat up on teams as badly as they have. These are NBA players, many of them are very proud: Bam Adebayo was extremely frustrated a few nights back, and the Magic players were throwing their towels in unison they were so disappointed in their own performance last night. They've beaten a lot of teams missing their best players, and been beaten by a lot of teams when they were missing their best players. They've been pounding on bad teams, and some good ones missing key players -- but this seasons they've also beaten the Suns, the Heat (once with J Butler, once without) , the Bucks, and the Cavaliers.
Also thought this was interesting. Look at Win-Loss and then look at Nrtg.
Every other team with a Nrtg over 4 has 32 wins or more. Going into last night they were the only team with a Nrtg that good with less than 30 wins.
Obviously, the competition matters but I continue to feel the defense is legit. And, I worry about the offense epsecially when Tatum/Brown is out...obviously. It is fun to see things shaping up a bit, and the consistency at both ends has been much better the last couple of weeks.
I'd like to see Romeo get more minutes, and to see some of the 'Romeo at PG' lineups when they fit. A Schroder trade would help make that happen, though I acknowledge they are playing well enough now that it's not totally clear they'll dump him (though I do think they'll trade him for value if someone interersting is coming back)
I'd like to see Romeo get more minutes, and to see some of the 'Romeo at PG' lineups when they fit. A Schroder trade would help make that happen, though I acknowledge they are playing well enough now that it's not totally clear they'll dump him (though I do think they'll trade him for value if someone interersting is coming back)
In baseball analysis a team's record in blowouts generally corresponds better to projecting success than its record in close games. At least in part because not all close games are the same. Is there a similar general thought about blowout/close games in the NBA?
I think the "nameless' faceless" comment was an attempt to more or less say "How we play is up to us and we have to play like that no matter who the opponent is."
I think (as you seem to) that the questions of playing well against quality competition and playing well late in close games are very much open questions. The team has yet to show that it can do those things with any consistency, and they are obviously essential. But there is a difference between "they have yet to show they can do it" and "they have proven they can't do it" and I think we are still in the former camp.
As to defense, this is why I disagree with the points people like @DeJesus Built My Hotrod about Langford. Right now, the team identity is defense, and Langford has shown that he can be part of that. He should be in the mix more.
(I would also agree with those who say the team's biggest flaw is what to do when Tatum is on the bench. The amount of gravity he has, and his improving passing skills, are sorely missed when he is on the bench. It's a think they need to figure out.)
My favorite part of this was that John misheard something else Jaylen said, in a way that led him to extend the coversation into one of the most pointlessly awkward postgame interviews I have heard.
View: https://twitter.com/John_Karalis/status/1490580839612264448?s=20&t=FW9rIiBdjhWXrJiOYQWbww
Snottie Drippen: Tonight even more comedy: I think initially he said "let's go with that", and you thought he said what's wrong with that, see you were explaining that nothing is actually wrong with it.
John Karalis: That's exactly what happened
Some real unintentional comedy there.
Largely agreed, but it is never really Romeo at PG. Maybe on defense. It is really Tatum or Horford at the point when Smart and Schroder are both out of the game. Romeo has flashed some ability to make good decisions as a pick and roll ballhandler, but he's really shown no other inclinations towards being a "create shots for teammates" player. Even if you adjust for his extremely low usage, claningtheglass has him with an assist rate that is among the worst in the league at his position.
Yeah, funny too because Karalis seems embarrassed, or like he even feels out of his depth talking to Jaylen: when Jaylen said "let's go with that" it seemed to be clearly with the tone of "can we move this along, dude?"
Largely semantics---they've used a setup where he plays PG defensively and brings the ball up. You're focused on who makes offensive choices, and I do not disagree with you, but that also doesn't change the lineup reality of what they have done either.
Put a different way, is your point that we should call Horford the "PG" in those lineups? I doubt that.
The thing I see as different when Romeo initiates (albeit in very small samples) is that it makes the defense match up wtih him earlier, and at top of key generally. So when he moves the ball to Tatum/Horford, etc. and then cuts or goes to a cornder there's already motion. That does not always happen if Schroder (in particular) or Smart starts with the ball because they keep it! So while Romeo himself isn't creating yet (I still think in college and in flashes we've seen a baby drive-and-dish skill from him) it still helps the offense, imo
Last edited:
Interesting, and does suggest some bad luck/failure to execute late in close games. Of course the Sacramento drubbing does tend to skew their net rating a bit -- e.g., if you take that mega-blowout win by 53 and turn it into a normal blowout (say they had won by 20 instead), that would drop the 4.2 to about 3.6. Still impressive though.
It is kinda misleading to cite Romeo’s assist rate while standing in the far corner while action is on the strong side. Maybe he could handle PG in some in-game matchups but certainly not in clutch time.
It's an offense/role thing though. Think about a triangle offense team: the nominal "point guard" never really initiated the offense or generated a lot of assists. Celtics, to the degree there's a consistent scheme, are moving in that same direction (not the triangle itself, but rather a scheme where there's not a single ball-dominant PG who always initiates). Romeo may be able to play minutes in that role, and they've experimented some with it.
Of course, he may not be able to as well and that would explain why we haven't seen more of it---though given the rotation inconsistencies it's hard to say
Of course, he may not be able to as well and that would explain why we haven't seen more of it---though given the rotation inconsistencies it's hard to say
One of them is pretty much always in at least, though the offense plummets to 2002 levels when Tatum sits. Offensive rating drops from 111.2 to 101.6, that’s almost an unheard of swing. Not really sure how they can fix it either, as it was the same case last year, though less extreme.
It’s why I’m hoping for an upgrade at the deadline, just not too optimistic about that.
To be clear, my point was wholly semantic. Put Langford out with all the starters but Smart and I'd call it a "no PG" lineup, not a Romeo at PG lineup. And if you pressed me to say who the PG was I'd say Tatum. I have no objection to exploring this type of lineup - it has worked at times.
We don't need to debate it but those arguing for more Langford minutes need to account for his offense. Most metrics show he is still subtracting more than he contributes when he plays. That said, defensive measurements are notoriously bad so its possible that his defense is so good that he is still additive. His offense has been mostly terrible though it did trend better over the past month.
Regardless, hoping that more Langford run makes him a better offensive player heading into these playoffs seems like a bad strategy. That isn't to say it won't work absent them getting a better option via a trade.
Regardless, hoping that more Langford run makes him a better offensive player heading into these playoffs seems like a bad strategy. That isn't to say it won't work absent them getting a better option via a trade.
I agree, that's what I think we need to learn/test more. I have some level of optimism he can (if used more consistently) be a non-horrible offensive contributor between ok-ish corner threes, active cutting, occasional driving. But I also agree we haven't seen it consistently and it may prove not to be the case. His defense is very strong, and figuring out if he can play a larger (15+ minutes) role regularly is worthwhile before the playoffs and as planning for next year.
Eddie Jurak, with you on the semantics.
As a side note, I like watching Langford on defense. He does all the little things that seem to be effective at making opposing players uncomfortable. I could be wrong but that sort of defense feels like it requires a person who isn't just willing to get physical but actually seeks out that kind of engagement. Its easy to see why people keep dreaming on him if he can just get some semblance of consistency on offense.
He definitely flashes as a legitimate 3-D guy. I wouldn't move him as salary filler.
Nesmith, on the other hand, flashes as a guy who mops the floor with his jersey. "Effort" is the only nice thing that you can day about him so far.
The biggest issue with Nesmith is that he can't shoot, which is supposedly his forte. He's a solid rebounder and he hustles, and if he were knocking down 3-pointers consistently, the other flaws in his game would be easier to overlook.
Grant Williams, of all people, has turned out to be the shooter Nesmith was supposed to be.
I mean, obviously, but there's good reason you can't. If you're looking to adjust for luck or something like that, why arbitrarily change the blowout by 33 points? Why not change it by ten? Or five?
My point is that huge blowouts are exactly what good teams are supposed to occasionally do to bad teams. Should we add an asterisk to the Warriors Nrtg because they had a huge win over the Pelicans (126-85)? Or would their 138-96 drubbing of Chicago qualify them for an asterisk? What about their 130-92 drowning of the Mavericks?
You see what I mean? No matter how badly a team shoots, beating them by 53 is not just dumb luck but a sign of a team that's clicking on both ends even if the other team is struggling or unhealthy. Having a Nrtg over 4 is very hard to do as well, and even if that measure is off by some margin, dropping it a full point because they absolutely demolished another team seems counterintuitive at best. I mean, they were missing De'Aaron Fox, but Haliburton, Barnes, Hield and Holmes all played: badly, sure, but they played nonetheless.
I'd also add that holding a team below 80, nevermind 90, is extremely hard to do these days. There's certainly luck involved, but you have to be an exceptional defense. Every team has scorers these days. The Celtics have done it four times this season. The Heat haven't done it a single time. Neither has Golden State. The Grizzlies have only done it once. Cleveland's done it twice. The closest the Jazz have come is 85 and 86 against OKC and Philadelphia.
Is that really a big swing when it involves an alpha? Not where I can pull numbers but how does this compare with Durant, Trae Young and Darius Garland? I just picked 3 guys quickly off top of my head who seem to have an enormous offensive impact on their team.
Edit: 5 more seconds of thought came up with Jokic, LeBron, Mitchell and Curry. I’m curious and would be surprised if most didn’t have as much if not more impact than Tatum.
Not sure where the numbers cited came from, but Bref on/offs for team Ortg have:
Tatum +8.1
Durant +2.7
Young +10.9
Garland +7.5
Jokic +14.5
Lebron +8.2
Curry +10.6
Mitchell +8.2
So yeah, it's pretty standard for #1 options.
Jokic +17
Garland +8.7
Durant +3.4
Trae +13
LeBron +8.5
Mitchell +9.1
Tatum +9.6
Steph +13.1
So Jokic, Steph, and Trae have had bigger swings. But I think that makes it clear that it’s a pretty damn big swing. But I shouldn’t have used unheard of, dumb hyperbole on my part.
Edit: had a second at work so cleaned up the format lol.
Last edited:
nba.com is more accurate than bball reference.
https://www.nba.com/stats/team/1610612738/onoffcourt-advanced/
Nesmith being unable to shoot in games is the strangest fucking thing ever. I've been to a number of games this year in person, and I always watch him in warmups, at the half, and the dude literally never misses. I think during the last 3 games I've been to, I saw him miss one 3 pointer in warmups, mostly because he was barely paying attention (he's always talking to a very large man during warmups, maybe some coach or something). 95% of his shots don't even touch rim, they are just pure net. It's so frustrating to watch him do that, and you know he's probably doing it in practice too, but he can't do it in games.
Ah you have to go through the team and calculate yourself, that's why I couldn't find it.
Not a huge difference on this anyway, the different possession caluclation changes it a bit for some guys, but the general outline is the same, Tatum is fairly high, but a lot of offensive focal points have at least as big if not bigger splits.
Yeah I cleaned up my post above, it looks like the 4th biggest swing I could find, of focal points.
Biggest difference is our offensive rating when Tatum is in, still isn’t nearly good enough. Which is something we are all aware of, obviously.
AN seems like the type that overthinks things. He's gripping the golf club way too hard instead of just trusting his ability.
Grande was on CsTalk the other day and made this point. Which team has the better playoff prospects: a team that wins s lot of blowouts but loses some close games so it has a really good NRtg or a team that has won of lot of close games but has a bad NRtg? Seems like the team like the Cs should have pretty good prospects if they can just correct the dozen or so of possessions down the stretch.
Last edited:
Depends why you're losing the close games, and who you're blowing out. If the reasons are that you can't consistently run offense, that's the kind of thing that gets you killed in the playoffs.
Much like how teams with 2 really bad defenders are usually okay in the regular season, but in the playoffs teams gameplan to exploit guys.
Boy, great call...that is exactly what I feel like with him as well. It's almost like he's always nervous out there. Especially with the starters/when game is closer.
The thing is that many rookies (and college freshman) go through this their first year which is why that first offseason is crucial in slowing the game down and making some type of leap in your second year. There was always a chance that leap would take place, even though I surely wasn’t going to bet on it, but now that it hasn’t he needs a change of scenery to have any chance of making it in this league.
It's weird b/c as down as I've been on this team, the only other teams in the East that I think they can't beat are the Nets and Bucks at full strength. Miami, Chicago, Philly would at least be competitive series that could go either way (IMO) and I think the Cs would beat Cleveland, Toronto, Charlotte, and the Hawks. Because those two top teams have been banged up and struggling, it still seems wide open.
Maybe it's my negative nature, but I beleive Kyrie will be playing home games by playoff time. With KD's return, I think the Nets will be super tough to beat. If they somehow end up trading Harden for Simmons and another role player - yikes.
I agree the offense needs a lot of work, which is why I'm disappointed that the team hasn't taken advantage of his defensive performance to get him the minutes he needs to improve on offense.
Everyone wants to be Miami; no one wants to throw minutes at Max Strus.
The Celtics match up with the Bucks really well, and are better equipped than most teams to slow them down. They'd be underdogs, but would absolutely have a shot to beat them. I'd only really be scared of the healthy Nets, because I don't think the Celtics can slow them down enough on offense.
Analysis of ysterday's game:
This felt in some ways like an 80% effort walk through against a team of scrubs in order to work on some things. (That was what it felt like - not saying it actually was like that except for the scubs part).
The C's jumped out to a 28-2 lead where they could do almost nothing wrong, then the bench came in and let the Net cut the lead down to 12, then the Celtics return to form and built the lead up enough that Ime could play the deep bench for the whole 4th quarter - and this time they extended the lead instead of nearly giving it up.
The starters varied from +31 to +40, with all but Horford playing just 27-28 minutes. The main bench was less effective, giving up the one Nets run and having plus/minus of -9 (Grant) or -13 (Richardson, Schroder). None of the other subs got in until late in the 3rd.
Brown was dominant early, scoring 12 points in the initial 28-2 run and finishing with 22 points, 9 assists, 7 rebounds.
Smart also had 22, on one of his rare good games bombing away from three (6-13).
Rob had a double double (12/11) and 3 blocks.
Tatum had a quiet but interesting game. He shot 7 of 11, 2 of 6 from three and a perfect 5 of 5 from 2, plus 3 of 4 at the line for 29. Also 5 rebounds and 4 assists. But I bet he had a lot of 'hockey assists.' Pretty much every time he (and to a lesser extent Brown) got the ball, the Nets threw a double at him, he passed to an open man, and the rest of the team used its 4 on 3 advantage to attack. (This is why I made the comment about an 80% scrimmage. It was almost as if Ime said to him "OK, let's use this scrimmage to work on getting rid of the ball when they trap" and he did.)
Horford had a solid 9 points, 7 assists, 5 rebounds in 22 minutes.
The Celtics are now in the 7th seed, 31-25 overall, having won 6 straight and 8 of 9. Since December 31, they are 15-6, and that includes a 3-3 stretch without Marcus (so 12-3 with him).
This has coincided with 1) team health, 2) weak schedule, and 3) opponent injuries, so it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Are there any analytics that take all of that into account? In a typical strength of schedule comparison, Brooklyn would look like a team that is basically similar to Boston. But you really have good Brooklyn with most of Durant, Harden, Irving, Aldridge availa ble and bad Brooklyn without most or all of them. Is there a metric that takes that into account, as well as all the Celtic injuries from earlier in the season?
This felt in some ways like an 80% effort walk through against a team of scrubs in order to work on some things. (That was what it felt like - not saying it actually was like that except for the scubs part).
The C's jumped out to a 28-2 lead where they could do almost nothing wrong, then the bench came in and let the Net cut the lead down to 12, then the Celtics return to form and built the lead up enough that Ime could play the deep bench for the whole 4th quarter - and this time they extended the lead instead of nearly giving it up.
The starters varied from +31 to +40, with all but Horford playing just 27-28 minutes. The main bench was less effective, giving up the one Nets run and having plus/minus of -9 (Grant) or -13 (Richardson, Schroder). None of the other subs got in until late in the 3rd.
Brown was dominant early, scoring 12 points in the initial 28-2 run and finishing with 22 points, 9 assists, 7 rebounds.
Smart also had 22, on one of his rare good games bombing away from three (6-13).
Rob had a double double (12/11) and 3 blocks.
Tatum had a quiet but interesting game. He shot 7 of 11, 2 of 6 from three and a perfect 5 of 5 from 2, plus 3 of 4 at the line for 29. Also 5 rebounds and 4 assists. But I bet he had a lot of 'hockey assists.' Pretty much every time he (and to a lesser extent Brown) got the ball, the Nets threw a double at him, he passed to an open man, and the rest of the team used its 4 on 3 advantage to attack. (This is why I made the comment about an 80% scrimmage. It was almost as if Ime said to him "OK, let's use this scrimmage to work on getting rid of the ball when they trap" and he did.)
Horford had a solid 9 points, 7 assists, 5 rebounds in 22 minutes.
The Celtics are now in the 7th seed, 31-25 overall, having won 6 straight and 8 of 9. Since December 31, they are 15-6, and that includes a 3-3 stretch without Marcus (so 12-3 with him).
This has coincided with 1) team health, 2) weak schedule, and 3) opponent injuries, so it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Are there any analytics that take all of that into account? In a typical strength of schedule comparison, Brooklyn would look like a team that is basically similar to Boston. But you really have good Brooklyn with most of Durant, Harden, Irving, Aldridge availa ble and bad Brooklyn without most or all of them. Is there a metric that takes that into account, as well as all the Celtic injuries from earlier in the season?
Great analysis. There’s a lot of really solid posting in this thread.
I’ll just add that, as of this morning, their point differential of 4.6 is #1 in the East. There are a lot of caveats (cupcake schedule, etc.) but that’s still evidence of a very impressive turnaround.
I’ll just add that, as of this morning, their point differential of 4.6 is #1 in the East. There are a lot of caveats (cupcake schedule, etc.) but that’s still evidence of a very impressive turnaround.
Nets gave Tatum the full Steph treatment last night, hard traps out deep every time he caught the ball. Was essentially 4 on 3 for the rest of the team, and they were all extremely decisive/under control.
Yeah the Nets team out there last night sucked, but I still think it’s better than the Greg Monroe led wolves team we lost to a couple of months ago.
Yeah the Nets team out there last night sucked, but I still think it’s better than the Greg Monroe led wolves team we lost to a couple of months ago.
Cs starters played 14 minutes and had a NRtg of 104.8 Not ORtg or Drtg but NRtg (ORtg= 160.0 / DRtg of 55.2). Asst% was 70.0.
In addition, Max Lederman at NBCSports Boston posted this:
View: https://twitter.com/Max_Lederman/status/1491191744532480000
In addition, Max Lederman at NBCSports Boston posted this:
4 of the 8 lowest scoring games by a team this season have come against the Celtics
2 of the worst 4 shooting performances have come against the Celtics
Since 11/3 the Celtics have the 2nd best def. rating & 2nd best opp scoring average in the NBA
This all sounds good. 
View: https://twitter.com/Max_Lederman/status/1491191744532480000
105 net rating is pretty good.
Love the walkthrough observation. Nets were throwing that double at Jaylen too, when Jayson was sitting. Cs picked that apart. Nets also tried the 2-3, and the Cs ate that for lunch.
Yeah, it was against the B team. But they executed at a high level against NBA players in a game that counts. And they were handling things that they might see in the playoffs with ease.
One other thing, watching JB and JT throw through, around, and (key) over those traps for easy hoops reminded me why I don't want any smurfy guards anymore. Unless your wheels allow you to avoid those traps altogether (like Kemba's don't anymore), I don't want to hitch my wagon to 6'1" guys. It was a joy to see what a waste of time that trap shit was for Brooklyn.
Love the walkthrough observation. Nets were throwing that double at Jaylen too, when Jayson was sitting. Cs picked that apart. Nets also tried the 2-3, and the Cs ate that for lunch.
Yeah, it was against the B team. But they executed at a high level against NBA players in a game that counts. And they were handling things that they might see in the playoffs with ease.
One other thing, watching JB and JT throw through, around, and (key) over those traps for easy hoops reminded me why I don't want any smurfy guards anymore. Unless your wheels allow you to avoid those traps altogether (like Kemba's don't anymore), I don't want to hitch my wagon to 6'1" guys. It was a joy to see what a waste of time that trap shit was for Brooklyn.
I believe in the defense. With their personnel, it never made any sense that they wouldn't be an elite defensive team. Every one of their starters is a plus defender. Except maybe Jaylen? He's so good at some aspects of defense and so bad at others that he's hard to evaluate; I'd probably peg him right around average, but he's almost like a mediocre shooter who somehow still creates gravity on the floor: no one is picking on Jaylen Brown's defense in the half court, regardless of whether he's actually good or not, which is valuable in and of itself. Add in Richardson and Grant Williams, along with spot minutes for Schroder (who I think is a below average defender), plus a coherent defensive scheme, and I think the defense is for real. Of note, I think Smart and Tatum's individual defense has bounced back to elite levels this season after dropping off over the last year or two, which might say something about Ime Udoka. Or maybe it says more about rebounding from COVID.
It's the offense I wonder about. They've gotten better; Tatum's still downloading the "elite playmaker" upgrade package, but he's clearly making the effort. They're working to get him the ball in the middle of the floor, and he's gotten better at passing out of traps. They're averaging a ton of assists lately and just picking teams apart. I still need to see it against elite teams, though. They've shown a reticence to attack shotblockers at the rim, which sometimes leads to aimless passing around the perimeter and contested jump shots late in the shot clock. They're still essentially two elite scorers surrounded by sketchy shooting.
Still - the East is wide open, and I'm optimistic they can juice the offense enough to get by on the strength of the defense in the playoffs. We'll see. Their biggest problem at the moment is lack of depth; they have like 7.5 guys that they trust to play on a nightly basis. An injury to any of those guys and I think they're in trouble.
It's the offense I wonder about. They've gotten better; Tatum's still downloading the "elite playmaker" upgrade package, but he's clearly making the effort. They're working to get him the ball in the middle of the floor, and he's gotten better at passing out of traps. They're averaging a ton of assists lately and just picking teams apart. I still need to see it against elite teams, though. They've shown a reticence to attack shotblockers at the rim, which sometimes leads to aimless passing around the perimeter and contested jump shots late in the shot clock. They're still essentially two elite scorers surrounded by sketchy shooting.
Still - the East is wide open, and I'm optimistic they can juice the offense enough to get by on the strength of the defense in the playoffs. We'll see. Their biggest problem at the moment is lack of depth; they have like 7.5 guys that they trust to play on a nightly basis. An injury to any of those guys and I think they're in trouble.
Speaking of net rating, the sample is now very large for the starters, and this is their net rating on the season, and our net rating when they sit.Cs starters played 14 minutes and had a NRtg of 104.8 Not ORtg or Drtg but NRtg (ORtg= 160.0 / DRtg of 55.2). Asst% was 70.0.
That sounds good.
Tatum +8.8/-3.7/+12.5 on/off
Rob +8.8/+0.9/+7.9 on/off
Smart +8.4/-0.6/ +9.0 on/off
Jaylen +8.2/+0.6/ +7.6 on/off
Horford +4.7/+3.8/ +0.9 on/off
Dominant. I was looking around at numbers, Jokic has a +21.1 on/off, he’s having the most ridiculous season I’ve seen.
In the C's garbage-time collapse the other night (against Detroit), we saw how easily the 6-1 Pritchard got trapped in the backcourt, with turnovers to follow.
Yeah he's like post-injury Kemba with his first step and basically the same height.
Pritchard can develop some footspeed with work, and I really hope that he does it. He'll never be Ja Morant, but being able to get around his guy a little bit more would do a lot for his game. His handle is already plenty strong, but he's not getting any longer.
I'll never forget this game that was all but over until IT was trapped and decided to more or less close his eyes and throw a prayer to nobody.
That's a great example. One of my favorite series ever, but we'd view it very differently had we lost it.