Is it time to talk about Coach Brad?

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
Exactly. I’ve been preaching this here for two decades which is why we will continue seeing Tatum ISO’s unless there is a rule change. To reach your goal of scoring on the possession you first need to accomplish several objectives.

Objective #1 - Don’t turn the ball over.

Objective #2 - Get off A shot....at the desired time on shot/game clock based on game situation.

Objective #3 - Get off a quality/clean look shot by your best scorer....at the desired time, etc.

Running a set in final possession against final possession defensive pressure makes accomplishing all 3 of these objectives very rare.....especially the timing which depending on game situation may be most crucial.
This is a nice breakdown.

At the end of the day, Tatum in iso or P&R is our best percentage chance of getting points against last-possession defense most of the time. This will be even more true once he gets better at getting calls. This is not going away.

The only time that this is unlikely to be the case is the rare occasion where the defense has a guy that can legit defend him, and there are few (Kawhi, Durant, Butler, etc.). In those cases, we may start seeing more of Brown breaking down his guy in the future. Maybe.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,695
That's super interesting in re why all the late game ISOs. Are those characterizations pretty much settled wisdom among coaching types? I know I get as frustrated as anyone when I see guys holding until 4 or 5 seconds are left and then heave up an awful shot. I see no problem with that with Harden, Curry types given their game, but even with players as great as JT or LeBron it sure seems futile. But...I guess I'm wrong on that? Happy to be wrong -- will settle my agita issues in those situations. :)
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
That's super interesting in re why all the late game ISOs. Are those characterizations pretty much settled wisdom among coaching types? I know I get as frustrated as anyone when I see guys holding until 4 or 5 seconds are left and then heave up an awful shot. I see no problem with that with Harden, Curry types given their game, but even with players as great as JT or LeBron it sure seems futile. But...I guess I'm wrong on that? Happy to be wrong -- will settle my agita issues in those situations. :)
Yeah, it's pretty settled. I don't know the exact expectations, but for arguments sake, let's imagine that the expected chance of scoring for your opponent is as follows:

< 1.5 seconds on the clock: 15%
< 5 seconds: 40%
< 10 seconds: 45%

To justify running a set play, you have to assume that your set play gets you a shot ~20-30% better than shooting at the end of the clock, and that's before taking into account the increased chance of a turnover.

The numbers aren't exact, but you get the idea. This is why a lot of Brad's best set plays come when there is either a very small amount of time left, or so much time left that running down the clock doesn't matter yet.

Understanding this concept is really critical to understanding why late-game basketball is the way it is. It's not because the coaches are dumb.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
We would all like to see some brilliant play run at the end of the game that gets an uncontested dunk or layup. The problem is that if you witness any uncontested layup in the NBA (in the half-court) it is usually because somebody on defense wasn't paying attention (they failed to switch, nobody called out a screen, they let their guy cut right behind them, etc.) In the final possession, defenses are locked in so there are going to be significantly less mental mistakes. You can try to run a set play (and the Celtics often do on in-bound plays, but it rarely results in getting a free look right at the basket) but when that doesn't free something up, the best thing you can do is give it to your 6'9" guy that can handle the ball and make tough shots, and hope he beats his defender.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
10,024
We would all like to see some brilliant play run at the end of the game that gets an uncontested dunk or layup. The problem is that if you witness any uncontested layup in the NBA (in the half-court) it is usually because somebody on defense wasn't paying attention (they failed to switch, nobody called out a screen, they let their guy cut right behind them, etc.) In the final possession, defenses are locked in so there are going to be significantly less mental mistakes. You can try to run a set play (and the Celtics often do on in-bound plays, but it rarely results in getting a free look right at the basket) but when that doesn't free something up, the best thing you can do is give it to your 6'9" guy that can handle the ball and make tough shots, and hope he beats his defender.
That's absolutely true. I think some of the frustration with the C's end-of-game/end-of-quarter plays stems from the fact that Tatum, who's 6-9 (or 6-10) with long arms, is rarely moving toward the basket when he puts up that tough shot, and so he's not drawing fouls in those situations. Hopefully as he gets stronger and more experienced he'll be able to mix in some drives with the long fade-aways or sidesteps.

Tatum isn't nearly as strong as Jimmy Butler, so it's not a great comparison, but ideally Boston would have someone who could drive, pull up and either make the shot or get fouled--or as Butler did in one of the early games of last year's Boston-Miami playoff series--come away with a three-point play. Jaylen Brown might well be that guy, and I'd like to see the ball in his hands from time to time at the end of close games.
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
4,209
Silver Spring, Maryland
Yeah, it's pretty settled. I don't know the exact expectations, but for arguments sake, let's imagine that the expected chance of scoring for your opponent is as follows:

< 1.5 seconds on the clock: 15%
< 5 seconds: 40%
< 10 seconds: 45%

To justify running a set play, you have to assume that your set play gets you a shot ~20-30% better than shooting at the end of the clock, and that's before taking into account the increased chance of a turnover.

The numbers aren't exact, but you get the idea. This is why a lot of Brad's best set plays come when there is either a very small amount of time left, or so much time left that running down the clock doesn't matter yet.

Understanding this concept is really critical to understanding why late-game basketball is the way it is. It's not because the coaches are dumb.
The problem I have is that these kinds of possessions are predictable. Hence easier for the defense to scheme against.
Which may explain why these isos seem to work infrequently,

It seems it should be possiblle to leverage this predictablity. Creative ball movement, whatever -- something to try to take advantage of what the defense thinks is going to happen.
Successes along those lines could also make the isos more difficult to guard (since the defense will have to consider other possiblities)
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The problem I have is that these kinds of possessions are predictable. Hence easier for the defense to scheme against.
Which may explain why these isos seem to work infrequently,

It seems it should be possiblle to leverage this predictablity. Creative ball movement, whatever -- something to try to take advantage of what the defense thinks is going to happen.
Successes along those lines could also make the isos more difficult to guard (since the defense will have to consider other possiblities)
The problem with this idea is that despite the advantage most offenses have now throughout the course of a regular season game the script is flipped late in a close game. Now once you get to a final possession the defense now has an enormous advantage in disrupting an offensive set.

I mentioned it earlier but it often goes undervalued is that managing the clock in these end of quarter and especially end of game possessions is critical. So running some type of motion that does create a good shot would leave time on the clock for the opponent to inbound at halfcourt following a timeout unless the offense gets very lucky. I used the term “lucky” as unlike an iso that can properly manage the game clock, a motion set with multiple options does not play to clock management by design (of the options in the motion set). The offense would need virtually everything to run perfect and still may leave time on the clock for the opponent to score. In today’s game with the quality of shotmakers you don’t even want to allow time for a catch and shoot but if you leave more than around 1.2 sec on the clock a player can catch, dribble and shoot.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
Some of it could be SSS, but there was a lot of talk earlier this week how the Celtics this season have been at or near the bottom of the league in the 4th quarter, and at or near the bottom of the league in "clutch" situations, which was defined as something like <3 minutes to play, game within X points (can't recall what X is).

So, whether it is coaching or the players or both, they seem to be doing a poorer job at the end of close games than other teams.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
The problem I have is that these kinds of possessions are predictable. Hence easier for the defense to scheme against.
Which may explain why these isos seem to work infrequently,

It seems it should be possiblle to leverage this predictablity. Creative ball movement, whatever -- something to try to take advantage of what the defense thinks is going to happen.
Successes along those lines could also make the isos more difficult to guard (since the defense will have to consider other possiblities)
Yes, they're predictable. They also don't leave time on the clock. Any time left over 2-3 seconds, and you are giving the opponent 0.80+ expected points. This means that your awesome unpredictable motion has to be roughly 40% (!) better than an uncreative iso to be worth doing. That's an impossible bar to clear.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,913
I’m not even close to ready to have this discussion. Certainly not in season during this covid weirdness season where they have zero practices and 50-80% of a roster. And as others have noted, it’s not an ideal roster either.

Brad isnt above reproach of course. I’ll be ready to at least entertain the discussion after the playoffs. The things I’ll be looking for are signs they have turned the mental corners in closing close playoff games. They were an absolute mess last year and it nearly cost them the Raptors series and it did cost them the ECF. Brad’s hallmark has been generally over achieving relative to his roster. Last years team underachieved. They’re much more talented than the Raptors and they’re more talented than Miami too.

The other thing I’m watching is their offensive style. I believe they’re like highest in the league share of scoring that comes in isolation . They’re an effective offense for sure but I’m very skeptical that’s a path to championships.

I have zero questions about Brads ability to coach a defense. Last year I think they were good defensively in part because they were disgusted with themselves for the Kyrie season. This season it feels like they know what they can do there and are experimenting and growing in other areas. I expect they’ll get it together when it matters. If not we can discuss that even the time comes during the off-season.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
...
The other thing I’m watching is their offensive style. I believe they’re like highest in the league share of scoring that comes in isolation . They’re an effective offense for sure but I’m very skeptical that’s a path to championships.
...
There's a strong argument to be made that elite iso scoring is one of the most important things in trying to win a championship. Playoff defenses take away the pretty stuff.

Brown and Tatum are also well above-average playmakers at the wing position, and the threat of iso scoring is really important for that.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
Last years team underachieved. They’re much more talented than the Raptors and they’re more talented than Miami too.
In Brad's defense, with a healthy (reg season) Kemba & Hayward they were more talented. BUT it was a coin toss with those two producing very little in the Miami series
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,193
San Francisco
Yes, they're predictable. They also don't leave time on the clock. Any time left over 2-3 seconds, and you are giving the opponent 0.80+ expected points. This means that your awesome unpredictable motion has to be roughly 40% (!) better than an uncreative iso to be worth doing. That's an impossible bar to clear.
Your point stands but I feel compelled to point out 2-3 seconds is absolutely not a 0.8 expected points play. This data is a little old, but it tracked game winning shot opportunities defined as either tied or down 1 or 2 points with < 24 seconds on the clock, and the league wide FG% was 29.8%, with 300 ish turnovers to 3000 ish shot attempts and 800 ish free throws. And that isn't even drilling down to < 5 seconds, which is a likely amount of time left after running a play when you have the ball.

That said, I think ballpark it will be closer to 0.5 points expected or less, which still has enough marginal effect to make keeping the ball and running out the clock the priority over running a play, but I don't think the effect is as dramatic as 40%.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
Your point stands but I feel compelled to point out 2-3 seconds is absolutely not a 0.8 expected points play. This data is a little old, but it tracked game winning shot opportunities defined as either tied or down 1 or 2 points with < 24 seconds on the clock, and the league wide FG% was 29.8%, with 300 ish turnovers to 3000 ish shot attempts and 800 ish free throws. And that isn't even drilling down to < 5 seconds, which is a likely amount of time left after running a play when you have the ball.

That said, I think ballpark it will be closer to 0.5 points expected or less, which still has enough marginal effect to make keeping the ball and running out the clock the priority over running a play, but I don't think the effect is as dramatic as 40%.
Interesting to see the exact numbers, thanks.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
The coach of the Canadian women's national team is a coaching friend of mine. Her philosophy is to get a good shot, and even if you leave time, it is better than not getting a good shot. She believes and says her analysis of her level shows getting a good look, even of allowing the team to get the ball back is best bet. Obviously, he perceived chances in OT factor in. If her best players are fouled out, or the other team's best player, is she in South America playing a South American team with South American refs? etc. But generally, she wants to score, get a good look. She feels the odd times the D is expecting the buzzed beater and maybe you get a lob, etc for easy score. Her feeling is she needs the best chance to get ahead.

Other view a procoach I work most closely with wants the clock to expire without losing in tie game, even if the shot is only a 20% chance
 
Last edited:

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,934
Cultural hub of the universe
The coach of the Canadian women's national team is a coaching friend of mine. Her philosophy is to get a good shot, and even if you leave time, it is better than not getting a good shot. She believes and says her analysis of her level shows getting a good look, even of allowing the team to get the ball back is best bet. Obviously, he perceived chances in OT factor in. If her best players are fouled out, or the other team's best player, is she in South America playing a South American team with South American refs? etc. But generally, she wants to score, get a good look. She feels the odd times the D is expecting the buzzed beater and maybe you get a lob, etc for easy score. Her feeling is she needs the best chance to get ahead.

Other view a procoach I work most closely with wants the clock to expire without losing in tie game, even if the shot is only a 20% chance
Interesting. The latter seems more like trying not to lose than trying to win. I've always hated those end of quarter possessions where they dick around and then get a terrible shot. I think your Woman's team coach has the better approach. Certainly more entertaining.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The coach of the Canadian women's national team is a coaching friend of mine. Her philosophy is to get a good shot, and even if you leave time, it is better than not getting a good shot. She believes and says her analysis of her level shows getting a good look, even of allowing the team to get the ball back is best bet. Obviously, he perceived chances in OT factor in. If her best players are fouled out, or the other team's best player, is she in South America playing a South American team with South American refs? etc. But generally, she wants to score, get a good look. She feels the odd times the D is expecting the buzzed beater and maybe you get a lob, etc for easy score. Her feeling is she needs the best chance to get ahead.

Other view a procoach I work most closely with wants the clock to expire without losing in tie game, even if the shot is only a 20% chance
Now this is similar to how I feel at the college level where the opponents a) Are not nearly skilled enough to score the ball as effectively as an NBA star.....and b) Cannot call a timeout to advance the ball to halfcourt.

My position that I’m advocating is in the NBA game. College and other levels, that utilize zone defense, etc are a different animal than the NBA. I was actually going to include in my take how the one thing that irks me is watching a lower level NCAA game and the coach is running down the clock like he has LeBron in iso rather than his junior college transfer pounding the ball at the top of a zone with :06 on the clock.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
27,958
Saskatoon Canada
Interesting. The latter seems more like trying not to lose than trying to win. I've always hated those end of quarter possessions where they dick around and then get a terrible shot. I think your Woman's team coach has the better approach. Certainly more entertaining.
20% chance is worst case, wants to run clock down, whereas other coach will shoot with 4 or 5 seconds left even in a tie game.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,504
Your point stands but I feel compelled to point out 2-3 seconds is absolutely not a 0.8 expected points play. This data is a little old, but it tracked game winning shot opportunities defined as either tied or down 1 or 2 points with < 24 seconds on the clock, and the league wide FG% was 29.8%, with 300 ish turnovers to 3000 ish shot attempts and 800 ish free throws. And that isn't even drilling down to < 5 seconds, which is a likely amount of time left after running a play when you have the ball.

That said, I think ballpark it will be closer to 0.5 points expected or less, which still has enough marginal effect to make keeping the ball and running out the clock the priority over running a play, but I don't think the effect is as dramatic as 40%.
Thanks for numbers. This is why in NBA playoff games the most important thing is to have an elite shot creator that gets to the FT line. This is where MIA with Butler had an edge on BOS last year. Not to beat a dead horse but JT (and JB) have to learn to get more calls.
 

JohnnyTheBone

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2007
36,344
Nobody Cares
That just reads like some old guy yelling "Get off my lawn."
That's how most revolutions start! More seriously, it's an indicator that for the first time in Stevens' tenure, fans are growing frustrated with his style. First, this thread was posted last week. Today, a new Manifesto appears. Opinions are not trending in the right direction for the first time in Brad's seven years in Boston.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
That's how most revolutions start! More seriously, it's an indicator that for the first time in Stevens' tenure, fans are growing frustrated with his style. First, this thread was posted last week. Today, a new Manifesto appears. Opinions are not trending in the right direction for the first time in Brad's seven years in Boston.
There's a Belichick thread on page 1 of BBtL also, and that motherfucker brought us six rings.

Natives gonna native. Dog bites man.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The natives are getting restless with Danny and Coach Brad. There is actually a Manifesto circulating online: https://bleedgreen4celtics.com/
So there are morons in the fan base. Big surprise.

I understand, there will always be room to discuss the head coach of a team that isn’t steamrolling everyone, because those of us on the outside can never tell which shortcomings are on the coach and which are on the players, but anyone who thinks Danny Ainge isn’t an above-average GM simply doesn’t understand the NBA.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
That's how most revolutions start! More seriously, it's an indicator that for the first time in Stevens' tenure, fans are growing frustrated with his style. First, this thread was posted last week. Today, a new Manifesto appears. Opinions are not trending in the right direction for the first time in Brad's seven years in Boston.
It was posted last week as the team was playing their ass off on a 5-game western trip including a come from behind win vs Clippers. Once players begin tuning a coach out is when you can begin this discussion......not when they are leaving it out there on the floor. It isn’t the coaches fault that aside from two players the entire roster is compiled of either very ordinary players, a quality 3rd option in Smart who is injured, and a bunch of below average players we will likely upgrade in the coming weeks.

Pointing the finger at Brad seems illogical to me.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
The natives are getting restless with Danny and Coach Brad. There is actually a Manifesto circulating online: https://bleedgreen4celtics.com/
The dumb natives have been restless from year one.

I'll never forget at the end of Brads first season here during Ainges' radio hit on Toucher and Rich, Rich asked him "how much blame does Brad Stevens get for this season?"

Ainge was stunned and it took everything in his power to not just say straight out, we were tanking this year because our roster sucks.

If people look at this roster and think Brad Stevens is the problem here, I don't even know what to say.

(I didn't bother clicking on the link, I'm assuming it's a waste of time)
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,025
Chelmsford, MA
I think the conversation to be had about Stevens revolves around the overall offensive system and whether it is maximizing Tatum and Brown.

Perhaps there are stats to verify this, but my eyes tell me that Kemba returning has had him doing a lot of dribbling and running their high screen sets and it has taken a lot of the sting out of Brown and Tatums game. We know this system can really work for smaller quick guards who like to penetrate but is it maximizing the talents of the players we have?

It almost always feels this way when you watch one team closely but not the opponent regularly but it sure feels like the Celtics work really hard for most of their baskets. It’s easier to contrast after watching Bealbut so much of what the Celtics do on offense revolves around high screens above the key and motion off of those concepts but it feels like other teams do a lot more work to free their shooters off ball and just get good shooters good looks. We seem to put the ball in the hands of our shooters a lot and ask them to drive and otherwise kick to comparitively poor shooters. Tatum doesn’t look to me like a guy who is ever going to be great at giving him the ball with 5 defenders staring at him and asking him to use his handle to break down a defense. It’s so strange to me how rare it is to see him coming around two off ball screens to curl for a jumper or getting to a specific spot to get him a good look when we really need to stop a run.

I’m not certain the answer to this is negative. I think it is entirely possible that Brads offensive system is pumping these guys up and they’d be worse running something else. Most coaches seem to really respect their offensive concepts and discuss the challenges the Celtics present. It just seems to me that the primary challenges Brad faces today are how to maximize Tatum and Browns offensive contribution and how to slot Walker into that. Right now it feels like everything is designed for that PG to be the primary chaos agent and I’m not sure that makes sense.

The other thing that stands out to me is Hayward’s play. I mentioned it in another thread but I thought he was absolutely cooked. He looked so slow and poor to me trying to create in our system and he’s been super effective in Charlotte. I k ow his role here was weird and he suffered for usage a bit but it really concerns me that he looked so ordinary trying to do what we do and has been a really good player in another system. Of course, I can have just been wrong in his contributions here but i really didn’t think he looked like he could be an alpha scorer in this league any longer
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,001
I think the conversation to be had about Stevens revolves around the overall offensive system and whether it is maximizing Tatum and Brown.

Perhaps there are stats to verify this, but my eyes tell me that Kemba returning has had him doing a lot of dribbling and running their high screen sets and it has taken a lot of the sting out of Brown and Tatums game. We know this system can really work for smaller quick guards who like to penetrate but is it maximizing the talents of the players we have?

It almost always feels this way when you watch one team closely but not the opponent regularly but it sure feels like the Celtics work really hard for most of their baskets. It’s easier to contrast after watching Bealbut so much of what the Celtics do on offense revolves around high screens above the key and motion off of those concepts but it feels like other teams do a lot more work to free their shooters off ball and just get good shooters good looks. We seem to put the ball in the hands of our shooters a lot and ask them to drive and otherwise kick to comparitively poor shooters. Tatum doesn’t look to me like a guy who is ever going to be great at giving him the ball with 5 defenders staring at him and asking him to use his handle to break down a defense. It’s so strange to me how rare it is to see him coming around two off ball screens to curl for a jumper or getting to a specific spot to get him a good look when we really need to stop a run.

I’m not certain the answer to this is negative. I think it is entirely possible that Brads offensive system is pumping these guys up and they’d be worse running something else. Most coaches seem to really respect their offensive concepts and discuss the challenges the Celtics present. It just seems to me that the primary challenges Brad faces today are how to maximize Tatum and Browns offensive contribution and how to slot Walker into that. Right now it feels like everything is designed for that PG to be the primary chaos agent and I’m not sure that makes sense.
The other thing that stands out to me is Hayward’s play. I mentioned it in another thread but I thought he was absolutely cooked. He looked so slow and poor to me trying to create in our system and he’s been super effective in Charlotte. I k ow his role here was weird and he suffered for usage a bit but it really concerns me that he looked so ordinary trying to do what we do and has been a really good player in another system. Of course, I can have just been wrong in his contributions here but i really didn’t think he looked like he could be an alpha scorer in this league any longer
Hayward looked great last year whenever he wasn’t hurt. I’m not at all surprised by what he’s doing.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,193
San Francisco
I think the conversation to be had about Stevens revolves around the overall offensive system and whether it is maximizing Tatum and Brown.

Perhaps there are stats to verify this, but my eyes tell me that Kemba returning has had him doing a lot of dribbling and running their high screen sets and it has taken a lot of the sting out of Brown and Tatums game. We know this system can really work for smaller quick guards who like to penetrate but is it maximizing the talents of the players we have?

It almost always feels this way when you watch one team closely but not the opponent regularly but it sure feels like the Celtics work really hard for most of their baskets. It’s easier to contrast after watching Bealbut so much of what the Celtics do on offense revolves around high screens above the key and motion off of those concepts but it feels like other teams do a lot more work to free their shooters off ball and just get good shooters good looks. We seem to put the ball in the hands of our shooters a lot and ask them to drive and otherwise kick to comparitively poor shooters. Tatum doesn’t look to me like a guy who is ever going to be great at giving him the ball with 5 defenders staring at him and asking him to use his handle to break down a defense. It’s so strange to me how rare it is to see him coming around two off ball screens to curl for a jumper or getting to a specific spot to get him a good look when we really need to stop a run.

I’m not certain the answer to this is negative. I think it is entirely possible that Brads offensive system is pumping these guys up and they’d be worse running something else. Most coaches seem to really respect their offensive concepts and discuss the challenges the Celtics present. It just seems to me that the primary challenges Brad faces today are how to maximize Tatum and Browns offensive contribution and how to slot Walker into that. Right now it feels like everything is designed for that PG to be the primary chaos agent and I’m not sure that makes sense.

The other thing that stands out to me is Hayward’s play. I mentioned it in another thread but I thought he was absolutely cooked. He looked so slow and poor to me trying to create in our system and he’s been super effective in Charlotte. I k ow his role here was weird and he suffered for usage a bit but it really concerns me that he looked so ordinary trying to do what we do and has been a really good player in another system. Of course, I can have just been wrong in his contributions here but i really didn’t think he looked like he could be an alpha scorer in this league any longer
Did you watch Hayward last year? He was fantastic.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
Hayward looked great last year whenever he wasn’t hurt. I’m not at all surprised by what he’s doing.
Nobody is. Nobody thinks that his strong year so far is due to anything besides health.

If people want to find a problem with the coach, they always will. Spend five minutes in the hockey forum during a Bruins losing streak, and it's coach, goalie, and <insert random expensive player here> in that order.

With a shitload of players having come through Boston in Brad's tenure, the list of guys who had their best years here is immense. The list of guys whose value Brad didn't fully tap is pretty fucking small. He's Belichickian in that regard.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,214
My only question about the Celtics firing Stevens is how long he would remain unemployed after they release him.

He is currently fifth in terms of longest tenured NBA coaches and if you evaluate him versus expected wins (I am not a fan of this methodology) he grades out pretty well. Between his experience, record and "brand" I suspect he would have a job fairly quickly.

From what I have seen, Boston Celtics fans have been incredibly fortunate with Doc and Brad coaching their teams. Neither is perfect but the Cs have been better than league average in coaching for going on two decades.
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
My only question about the Celtics firing Stevens is how long he would remain unemployed after they release him.

He is currently fifth in terms of longest tenured NBA coaches and if you evaluate him versus expected wins (I am not a fan of this methodology) he grades out pretty well. Between his experience, record and "brand" I suspect he would have a job fairly quickly.

From what I have seen, Boston Celtics fans have been incredibly fortunate with Doc and Brad coaching their teams. Neither is perfect but the Cs have been better than league average in coaching for going on two decades.
After 15 years of mostly garbage coaching, it really should be more apparent to people that we have it pretty good. Some of those lean years were tankathon but still...
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
There was a decent amount of Hayward standing in the corner waiting for someone to pass him the ball. That's not on Hayward, that's on the system/rest of team.
No there wasn't. Hayward was an initiator. He had more assists and rebounds and higher rates last year than this one. He certainly wasn't standing in the corner.

He has a higher usage rate this year, which is to be expected with nobody on the Jays level around him.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
5,205
Lynn
Team takes midrange jumpers like it’s the early 2000s, 5th most in the league.

Tatum is meh from 16-23, and Jaylen has regressed from his midrange burner to start the year. Makes for some ugly offense, and hurts the spacing.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,193
San Francisco
I think spreading guys out and shooting more threes would open up more room in the paint. It’s a matter of preference, but I don’t like having multiple guys in the middle of the floor.
The midrange jumpers aren't catch and shoot though, its usually as a counter from Jaylen or Jayson when their driving lane is cut off.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
The midrange jumpers aren't catch and shoot though, its usually as a counter from Jaylen or Jayson when their driving lane is cut off.
Yeah, the problem is a lack of quality shooters that actually add real value when they play. Grant, Teague and Ojeleye can shoot whatever and it's not going to matter if they are playing an average of 56 minutes a night. Which is their season average.. the exactly how much they had tonight. At best, I think the 3 are league average shooters and the rest of their games don't warrant that much play. For legit 3 point threats, the team has Tatum, Brown, and possibly Kemba, PP and eventually Nesmith.

Green playing hurt Brown's game a bit tonight.
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
4,209
Silver Spring, Maryland
Hayward looked great last year whenever he wasn’t hurt. I’m not at all surprised by what he’s doing.
Alas, the "wasn't hurt" was almost more exception than rule.
It was tough to have faith in the availability of someone who breaks his hand by accidentally swinging it into someone else. Or sprains his ankle just by landing wrong.

But that's an aside. A real question is whether major injuries -- hayward, and walker, and even Irving -- are avoidable or predicatable? Or are the celts unluckier than others?

And -- does BS have a Thibodeau flaw: getting good performance out of his players at the expense of wearing them out? I don't think so, but ....
 
Last edited:

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
Alas, the "wasn't hurt" was almost more exception than rule.
It was tough to have faith in the availability of someone who breaks his hand by accidentally swinging it into someone else. Or sprains his ankle just by landing wrong.

But that's an aside. A real question is whether major injuries -- hayward, and walker, and even Irving -- are avoidable or predicatable? Or are the celts unluckier than others?

And -- does BS have a Thibodeau flaw: getting good performance out of his players at the expense of wearing them out? I don't think so, but ....
Everyone wondered out loud about the Sixers bad luck with Embiid, Simmons, and Fultz starting their careers on the bench.

Training/medical staff doesn't have much to do with what happened with Hayward, IT, or Kyrie. Unless IT says that the Celtics told him that nothing was wrong and/or pressured him to play through it, which he hasn't afaik.

Shit happens. Guys get hurt.

Good question about Thibs. That's definitely his rep in the twitterverse. That and being a hardo 24/7 and not knowing when to take his foot off the gas pedal, which is probably not a bad thing for a couple of years in the nuthouse where he is currently employed. If an owner with a stacked veteran team tried to hire Thibs, he might need a bodyguard though.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Durability is absolutely predictive. The degree of predictability varies and isn’t always certain however. So yes, there is luck involved when talking about one particular player during one particular season.