As the C's put away game two, I made the following note in the game thread:
Each opponent is different and each game is different, but can we realistically expect to put as many eggs in the proverbial three-point basket in the remainder of this series? I'm skeptical, but I'd love to be convinced.
But this wasn't a universally held opinion:Solid win. They need to figure out how to shoot in the paint—these 3s aren’t sustainable.
If they get the driving, passing, and spacing that they had in the first half, it’s sustainable
(assuming White or Theis don’t take any)
So can we continue to live and die by the three, effectively ceding the paint for all but occasional mismatches and openings? The Celtics made 20 three-pointers last night, the Bucks only three. Beyond the arc, the Celtics shot 46.5% (20 out of 43 attempts) while the Bucks shot 16.7% (3 out of 18 attempts). We were even on 2nd chance points (nine each) and fast break points (six each). But we got outscored by 30 in the paint: 54-24. If we can continue to shoot 46.5% from three, it won't matter: obviously, a bucket that is worth 1.5 times one sank from inside the arc is vastly preferable. But we shot 36.4% in game one against the Nets, 35.5% in game two, 41.4% in game three, and 37.1% in game four. In every one of those games, we scored more in the paint than Brooklyn. In game one against Milwaukee, we shot 36% from downtown, barely eclipsing the Bucks' 35.3% from three while also getting dominated everywhere else on the floor.They’re going to get a shitload of wide open threes every single game and I want them to take all of them. I liked them working in some midrange in the first half but I don’t foresee a whole lot of success at the rim with Milwaukee packing the paint.
Each opponent is different and each game is different, but can we realistically expect to put as many eggs in the proverbial three-point basket in the remainder of this series? I'm skeptical, but I'd love to be convinced.