Round 2: Celtics vs Cavs

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
38,900
Hingham, MA
I'm thinking about football here, when you have an overmatched team they'd like the game to be like 8 possessions each, not 14. Realize it is an entirely different game but I would think you'd want to push pace as much as possible the first ~3 quarters, then to @lovegtm 's point you grind to a halt once you get to 99% win probability.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,564
Agreed, once you have a comfortable lead you want to shorten the game.
And fwiw, they do tend to play a lot faster before they get big leads. They played very fast in the early 3rd Q yesterday when they were opening it up. If a couple open 3s had dropped and/or Mook hadn't caught fire, they blow it open fully at that point and Cleveland probably quits.

I'm thinking about football here, when you have an overmatched team they'd like the game to be like 8 possessions each, not 14. Realize it is an entirely different game but I would think you'd want to push pace as much as possible the first ~3 quarters, then to @lovegtm 's point you grind to a halt once you get to 99% win probability.
You hit 98% win probability surprisingly early when up 20+, so the running wouldn't be all 3 quarters in many cases.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
50,675
they could definitely push the pace more but it also is worth mentioning the other team has a big say in whether transition possibilities exist. you may recall cleveland really didn’t have guys crashing the offensive glass at all, they were almost always with at least four back after a miss.
Agreed.

Some of the complaints about what the Celtics were doing poorly or failing to execute were really compliments for the Cavs. Their defense was great this series - it felt like they made Boston work for everything. They chased shooters off the line (though the Cs definitely missed some wide open looks) and Mobley altered plays just by occupying space.

The Celtics can always execute better but a lot of their issues were a function of what the Cavs were giving them.
 

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
11,922
Washington, DC
Possibly early in the game. Once you're ahead by 15-20, you definitely want fewer possessions. I think the Celtics are underratedly good at productively killing the pace in the 4Q when up 10+. They tend to keep those leads, and have the other team run out of time when they get them eaten into.
One of the things Karalis often emphasizes on his podcast is how teams entering the fourth quarter with a lead need to prioritize scoring. Doesn't mean that you give up on defense, but at that point, trading buckets is a win. It's part and parcel of grinding down the opponent to maintain your lead until the final buzzer--you take your time to both whittle at the clock and set up an ideal shot. If the shot presents itself earlier in the shot clock, you take it, since the net result is either battling to even on the ensuing possession (and killing more clock) or expanding your lead.
 

SteveF

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,190
Boston's Opace excluding second chances is 15th of 16 in the playoffs, 11th if you exclude low leverage (4th quarter, time consuming possessions, presumably). They are roughly average in transition frequency.
Regular season Opace excluding second chances was 14.18 excluding low leverage. 15.31 in the playoffs excluding low leverage. So that's a pretty big difference.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,701
Last night I thought I remembered the Celtics running a pick and roll with White and Holiday. I can’t find the play now but I’m pretty sure it was in the 2nd half. I don’t recall them running pick and roll with DW and JH previously. It caught my attention as something unusual.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,564
Last night I thought I remembered the Celtics running a pick and roll with White and Holiday. I can’t find the play now but I’m pretty sure it was in the 2nd half. I don’t recall them running pick and roll with DW and JH previously. It caught my attention as something unusual.
I think they do it rarely because it doesn't force the switch or hedge decision that running screening action with the guards and forwards does.
 

m0ckduck

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,010
Agreed.

Some of the complaints about what the Celtics were doing poorly or failing to execute were really compliments for the Cavs. Their defense was great this series - it felt like they made Boston work for everything. They chased shooters off the line (though the Cs definitely missed some wide open looks) and Mobley altered plays just by occupying space.

The Celtics can always execute better but a lot of their issues were a function of what the Cavs were giving them.
Indeed, it's largely forgotten that the Cavs were 6th in D-EF this year.

(Although, in fairness, they were closely grouped with several teams... maybe makes more sense to look at it like: MIN... gap... Orlando ... gap ... Boston and OKC ... gap ... then a bunch of other good teams including CLE).
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,366
around the way
So I think that part speaks to what I meant when I wrote "might lend itself to more blowouts." That's certainly the reward part. Feels like there is a risk there too that's all. Again phrased it as a question because I legit dont know, was just throwing it out there. I do know (while obviously an apples and oranges comparison) is that more often than not, on a tennis court the clear-cut favorite will grind his/her opponent down.
Yeah your tennis example is not bad at all.

Going fast to put your opponent at a disadvantage is always good...when it's under control. No matter who they're playing, they'll take every 3 on 1 that presents itself. But against an overwatched opponent, there's less urgency to push it.
 
Last edited:

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,701
I think they do it rarely because it doesn't force the switch or hedge decision that running screening action with the guards and forwards does.
Agree. That's why I thought it was odd. Running those two on a pick and roll does not do much in terms of generating a favorable match up but I guess it does create movement which can disrupt defensive coverage.
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
6,432
Cultural hub of the universe
One of the things Karalis often emphasizes on his podcast is how teams entering the fourth quarter with a lead need to prioritize scoring. Doesn't mean that you give up on defense, but at that point, trading buckets is a win. It's part and parcel of grinding down the opponent to maintain your lead until the final buzzer--you take your time to both whittle at the clock and set up an ideal shot. If the shot presents itself earlier in the shot clock, you take it, since the net result is either battling to even on the ensuing possession (and killing more clock) or expanding your lead.
Very true. You never know when Marcus Morris (or Dean Wade) are going to go on an insane heater, but if you've got a good lead and keep making shots it doesn't matter.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,928
The usual expectation is that games should be closer in the playoffs than the regular season because the opponents are better. But, this year, for the Celtics, I’m not really sure that’s true. Both the Heat and the Cavs, with all their injuries, are just not particularly good teams.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,398
I am hesitant to respond because I'm only an ok poster, and also because I can't tell whether this is serious.
It certainly was posted in all earnestness. And I have appreciated the answers from lots of our other good posters. I am feeling better about things. A little.
 

Return of the Dewey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
3,167
Pants Party
All this talk about Celtics not playing great teams reminds me of the 80s Lakers. As a kid, I remember talking with relatives about how easy the Lakers had it in the West compared to the Celtics who had very good Sixers and Pistons teams, as well as Bucks with Moncreif and Hawks with Dominique.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,564
It certainly was posted in all earnestness. And I have appreciated the answers from lots of our other good posters. I am feeling better about things. A little.
OK, in that case, I'd just say that going 8-2 with a +12 rating against NBA teams is hard, even for a good team, and even if they're bottom feeders. Doing so against decent teams with injuries is harder.

NBA series go 7 games because a LOT can happen in 1-2 games, even for very good teams against very bad teams. It's all about the average outcome and solving any problems the other team gives you. You don't get bonus points for sweeping every series, and most of the greatest teams have not done anything close to that.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,876
Imaginationland
It certainly was posted in all earnestness. And I have appreciated the answers from lots of our other good posters. I am feeling better about things. A little.
I won't begrudge anyone who doesn't feel like Boston has been great so far, given the quality of their opponents, but there's also really nothing to feel bad about. Back to back 4-1 series wins with comfortable margins (and literally 1 minute of crunch time play so far) is the very definition of taking care of business. The worst thing that's happened so far is KP getting hurt, the play on the court (and individual play by the stars and role players) has been fine.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
6,286
Lynn
It certainly was posted in all earnestness. And I have appreciated the answers from lots of our other good posters. I am feeling better about things. A little.
No snark, just curiosity. If an 8-2 record and a +12 net rating doesn’t have you feeling too good, what would?
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,564
No snark, just curiosity. If an 8-2 record and a +12 net rating doesn’t have you feeling too good, what would?
Also with no snark: I don't think people who are more casual understand how good +12 over 10 playoff games is, even if the opponents are 6-10 seed level.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,398
No snark, just curiosity. If an 8-2 record and a +12 net rating doesn’t have you feeling too good, what would?
I think this question is framed well, and it highlights the fact that I am a very emotional Celtics fan and as much as I love the game, I don’t understand it as well as the good posters here. There have been a lot of very good posts today that have helped me understand that while I was screaming at the television and wondering why we weren’t blowing the Cavs out of the water…we sort of were blowing the Cavs out of the water.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,398
Also with no snark: I don't think people who are more casual understand how good +12 over 10 playoff games is, even if the opponents are 6-10 seed level.
Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to articulate just now. I was absolutely not seeing it that way. It’s probably frustrating for the regular Port Cellar crew to have to spell this out to those of us who are less knowledgeable about the game, but it is very helpful. I genuinely learn a lot from these discussions.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,564
Yes, this is exactly what I was trying to articulate just now. I was absolutely not seeing it that way. It’s probably frustrating for the regular Port Cellar crew to have to spell this out to those of us who are less knowledgeable about the game, but it is very helpful. I genuinely learn a lot from these discussions.
Na, all good, it's fun. Basketball is a crazy high-variance sport, and a lot of stuff only evens out over time.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
42,430
In general, I think Coach Joe agrees with you - you can see him exhorting the guys (usually Tatum, TBF) to get into the offense quicker on a regular basis. I love it when PP is racing up the court and looks back and sees Tatum (or whomever) walking up the court and he drops his head just a little because you can see he wants to go balls out. But I think Tatum sees it like @jezza1918 : we're better than these clowns, so let's run our offense, do our thing, and grind them into dust. Somewhere, there's a happy medium, which I think they've mostly found.
I'm not the stats guy on this board, but honestly, I'd love to see a study (probably wrong word) that correlates PPP vs time on the clock when getting over half court. If I were a betting man, and I am, I would lay the house that PPP drops the longer it "takes" to cross half court.

Again, not talking about transition, fast break points. Even after a made basket, I would bet that a team getting the ball over half court with say 20 seconds on the clock will score more PPP than a team getting it over halfcourt with 17 seconds.

Think about it this way, opponent scores, inbounds to PP, he races up court, nobody around, he brings it back out, ball at the top to get into a halfcourt set with 17 seconds left. Or, Tatum/Jrue cross halfcourt with 18 seconds left, get into the halfcourt, wait for the screen and make your move on the PnR with about 10 seconds. I truly belive the former option generates more points, even if you eliminate the possessions where PP finds an open shooter or an open lane with a cutter

I dont believe this would work with a team like Denver because they thrive in their halfcourt offense, but for a team like the Cs with shooters and athleticism everywhere, the pressure it puts on opponents will eventually break them. I despise the walking the dog offense until the game is out of reach and Davison or Walsh are walking the dog to chew clock.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
10,320
NOVA
I'm not the stats guy on this board, but honestly, I'd love to see a study (probably wrong word) that correlates PPP vs time on the clock when getting over half court. If I were a betting man, and I am, I would lay the house that PPP drops the longer it "takes" to cross half court.

Again, not talking about transition, fast break points. Even after a made basket, I would bet that a team getting the ball over half court with say 20 seconds on the clock will score more PPP than a team getting it over halfcourt with 17 seconds.

Think about it this way, opponent scores, inbounds to PP, he races up court, nobody around, he brings it back out, ball at the top to get into a halfcourt set with 17 seconds left. Or, Tatum/Jrue cross halfcourt with 18 seconds left, get into the halfcourt, wait for the screen and make your move on the PnR with about 10 seconds. I truly belive the former option generates more points, even if you eliminate the possessions where PP finds an open shooter or an open lane with a cutter

I dont believe this would work with a team like Denver because they thrive in their halfcourt offense, but for a team like the Cs with shooters and athleticism everywhere, the pressure it puts on opponents will eventually break them. I despise the walking the dog offense until the game is out of reach and Davison or Walsh are walking the dog to chew clock.
I'm glad you added the last sentence because what you're alluding to here is in general what the modern offensive game has realized (though other teams in the past also played this way). But, Denver, of course, as you say, defies what we typically see now in the NBA. Advantages can be easily created by moving the ball up quickly before a defense is completely set and it also allows the offense to feel more in the flow and in rhythm. Denver is different and more old-school if you will in that they are so great at creating advantages in the quarter court it isn't necessary or even optimal for them to play faster (part of this is bc of the way they need to defend as in they cannot be in a game that is fast and part of it is who their star player is). The Celtics, OTOH, can do both. I know that's sacrilegious here but check out lovegtm posts in the Tatum thread. He hasn't gotten there yet (he's still in the process of posting) but the Celtics are very adept playing faster and slower. They really can exploit a defense in the half court even starting at 17 seconds instead of 20. Fans just don't always recognize it. And, to be fair, there are times to play faster even with a lead late and Joe gets this and saw this last night late with Joe imploring them to pick it up a bit. As you laid out here, it doesn't mean you have to fast break off made baskets. Sometimes, the situation that you're in calls for more oomph getting the ball over half court.

Edit: I would also like to see the numbers on when the Celtics get the ball over half court with 17 v. 20 seconds on the clock. I would guess that if there were this big difference then Joe would be committing coaching malpractice for not imploring this upon them, or that the players are way too lax in not adhering to this. My guess based on my eyes only is that the difference is very small and that the real difference is situational. Do these types of stats exist? I know obviously there are for when shots are taken within the clock but that's different than what you're pointing out here.

Edit 2: And the reason why you may see the Celtics play slower even if the offensive stats suggest they should always pick it up more is how it ties into their defense. Context is everything in basketball. Joe may have stats that say playing slower at times of the game and/or v certain opponents is optimal even if it produces slightly fewer points bc of how things are going to go at the other end.

Edit 3: As said a lot, the coaches know more than we do on the outside.
 
Last edited:

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
10,320
NOVA
You want to know a reason why Denver plays so well in supposed crunch time minutes? They play that way almost always. It's not to say they don't ever fast break. They do of course bc the Joker is Bill Walton-ish with his outlets when he wants them to go. But they generally play a quarter-court game and so crunch time looks no different to them. What's the downside of this? Do what Minn has done in their wins. Make them miss shots and run. And you can wipe them out before you ever get to crunch time.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
The Celtics, if fully healthy, will not be an underdog to anyone. Even without KP they might be betting favorites.

People seem to forget this Celtics team had a top 5 season ever. They’re pretty good.
The last celts team to go 8-2 in the first round was 1986.. it’s the playoffs.. the other team has players who can score, regardless of injuries.

I just don’t get some of the pessimism around here.. 30% to beat Denver without KP? What?
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
Celts are very good, probably the most talented and deepest team in the league. That might have been true last year as well.

But they lose focus and fall into bad and predicable and beatable habits.

I keep on hoping they mature into the monster team I envision them to be

I think they can but I'm not yet certain.
The stats (and actual games) don’t support anything you’re saying here.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,907
Melrose, MA
The C's offense is very weird and very different from what everyone else runs--it's a very specialized Frankenstein that doesn't break down the defense in normal ways. It has a lot of economy of movement and economy of passing, and that often looks like stagnation even though it empirically is the best ever at breaking down defenses.
This level of superlative doesn't square with the fact that the Celtics offense, especially without KP, is prone to long stretches of borderline incompetence, especially in the 4th quarters of close games, when it looks as if their priority is "burn 10 extra sconds off the clock >>> score."

I'm not saying the eye test is correct, but if you really want to sell your "best ever" arguments beyond preaching to the choir, you need to address why they can look so spectacularly awful at times.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
This level of superlative doesn't square with the fact that the Celtics offense, especially without KP, is prone to long stretches of borderline incompetence, especially in the 4th quarters of close games, when it looks as if their priority is "burn 10 extra sconds off the clock >>> score."

I'm not saying the eye test is correct, but if you really want to sell your "best ever" arguments beyond preaching to the choir, you need to address why they can look so spectacularly awful at times.
Please back this with actual game stats/ video.

They’re beating playoff teams by double digits.. often up by 20+ in the fourth. I’m guessing they have a lot more data that shows that slowing the game in the fourth wins a lot more games.

Borderline incompetence?? That is just a ridiculous statement. Teams go on runs and the Celtics can miss shots… not sure why the eye test matters more than actual stats.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
10,386
San Francisco
The “argument by vibes” contingent having a playoffs renaissance in the port cellar. The celtics high leverage situation offense was certainly less dominant than their total, i think 6th or 7th in the league per pbpstats. “Incompetent” though is just trying hard to be negative.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,701
This level of superlative doesn't square with the fact that the Celtics offense, especially without KP, is prone to long stretches of borderline incompetence, especially in the 4th quarters of close games, when it looks as if their priority is "burn 10 extra sconds off the clock >>> score."

I'm not saying the eye test is correct, but if you really want to sell your "best ever" arguments beyond preaching to the choir, you need to address why they can look so spectacularly awful at times.
Incompetence is the wrong word. No team hits all of their shots and every single team, even the best of the best, looks bad from time to time. The 2015-16 Golden State Warriors went 73-9 and lost multiple games in the regular season and playoffs by 20+ points.

The 1995-96 Bulls went 72-10 on their way to a championship and lost games by 20+ in an era when scoring was far lower than it is today.

Even the most dominant teams are not dominant all the time.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
25,292
where I was last at
The stats (and actual games) don’t support anything you’re saying here.
I don't get overly impressed with inflated stats against teams that if healthy the Celts should easily beat, and neither the Heat w/out their best player, Butler, nor the Cavs w/out (fill-in the blank) were anything close to healthy. I think the Celts, who I can only say for the gazillionth time, are probably the best/deepest team in the NBA, but all too often get bored or complacent, or distracted and if they do against good, healthy well coached teams, they'll lose. On the positive side, in this regard, (focus) they are better than last year. This is my perception and you do not have to share it.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,528
I don't get overly impressed with inflated stats against teams that if healthy the Celts should easily beat, and neither the Heat w/out their best player, Butler, nor the Cavs w/out (fill-in the blank) were anything close to healthy. I think the Celts, who I can only say for the gazillionth time, are probably the best/deepest team in the NBA, but all too often get bored or complacent, or distracted and if they do against good, healthy well coached teams, they'll lose. On the positive side, in this regard, (focus) they are better than last year. This is my perception and you do not have to share it.
I think what's missing from the bolded is that those "good, healthy, well-coached teams" also get "bored, complacent or distracted" sometimes (or, more generally, just suffer from some temporary malady that causes them to look like shit).
 
Last edited:

Silverdude2167

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2006
4,797
Amstredam
I don't get overly impressed with inflated stats against teams that if healthy the Celts should easily beat, and neither the Heat w/out their best player, Butler, nor the Cavs w/out (fill-in the blank) were anything close to healthy. I think the Celts, who I can only say for the gazillionth time, are probably the best/deepest team in the NBA, but all too often get bored or complacent, or distracted and if they do against good, healthy well coached teams, they'll lose. On the positive side, in this regard, (focus) they are better than last year. This is my perception and you do not have to share it.
Your concern is that they get bored/complacent against lesser teams, so why do you think that will happen when challenged? Have you seen that happen this year?

Or are we mad that they won by 15 where if they tried the entire time they would have won by 45?
 

jayhoz

Ronald Bartel
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
17,572
He also used it after someone made a shot: "He found the laces!"

It was super annoying to hear it repeated over and over (in different iterations) on the Cs contest but it really got to me when Ian Eagle used it as well in the small part of the OKC-DAL game I watched.
Dedes' whole presentation was borderline unlistenable. "Finds the laces" was the most egregious, but a close second was the extreme emphasis placed on average shots in inconsequential moments. Screaming a players name when they make a basket doesn't change the fact that it was an average jump shot by a team down 10 in the beginning of the third. Save that shit for when something meaningful happens.
 
Last edited:

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
25,292
where I was last at
Your concern is that they get bored/complacent against lesser teams, so why do you think that will happen when challenged? Have you seen that happen this year?

Or are we mad that they won by 15 where if they tried the entire time they would have won by 45?
I could care less if they beat Abandoned Orphans by 10 or 15 or 45. As long as they win is fine, this time of year.

And hopefully they will rise to the occasion, as they did in G6, down 2-3 last year against the 76ers, when DW made a miraculous buzzer beater tip in to save their season. But sometimes flipping the switch doesn't work or comes too late, or the those damn Orphans smell blood in the water and fight back, and steal the whole damn loaf as the Heat did last year.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,837
I could care less if they beat Abandoned Orphans by 10 or 15 or 45. As long as they win is fine, this time of year.

And hopefully they will rise to the occasion, as they did in G6, down 2-3 last year against the 76ers, when DW made a miraculous buzzer beater tip in to save their season. But sometimes flipping the switch doesn't work or comes too late, or the those damn Orphans smell blood in the water and fight back, and steal the whole damn loaf as the Heat did last year.
The series loss to the Heat had multiple factors, but the Celtics failing to "flip a switch" wasn't one of them. Brogdon got hurt, which put too much of the backcourt responsibilities into the hands of a rapidly declining Marcus Smart. Mazzulla had zero support from his coaching staff and was still trying to find ways to get the team to move the ball on offense, a problem that was existent against Atlanta and Philly as well. And so the team was ripe to foiled by Miami's zone, shooting variance, an excessively favorable whistle for Butler, and finally, Tatum's untimely injury in Game 7.

White's buzzer beater was Game 6 against Miami, not Philly.

EDIT: It is correct that we as fans still do not have a great feel for how good of a playoff team this Celtics iteration is. The competition has indeed been both injured and meh. It's easy to get nervous watching the Denver/Minnesota series and wonder how the Celtics would match up against either one in the Finals. Denver handled the Celtics fairly easily in 2 regular season matchups this season, and the T'Wolves took the Celtics to OT both times.

But I also think it's long past the time to start bringing up last season's Heat series; this season's team is very different, even with KP injured (which hopefully will be, and should be, a non-issue by the Finals). Every team looks bad on offense when the ball doesn't go in, which will happen around 50% of the time in every game by every team. Celtics team defense is good enough to handle those stretches, which happen to every team. And that is why they will be prohibitive favorites to make the Finals, and probably slight favorites to win it all.

The 2008 Celtics started the playoffs 10-8, and looked as bad in those 8 losses as the Celtics have looked in their 2 losses.
 
Last edited:

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,867
Dedes' whole presentation was borderline unlistenable. "Finds the laces" was the most egregious, but a close second was the extreme emphasis placed on average shots in inconsequential moments. Screaming a players name when they make a basket doesn't change the fact that it was an average jump shot by a team down 10 in the beginning of the third. Save that shit for when something meaningful happens.
They decided their only interesting angle was a Cavs upset instead of watching Boston round itself into form on it way to the ECF or, as covered in the other thread, some interesting mathematical defensive choices made by Mazzulla. This led them to openly root for the Cavs to make it a close game. It was annoying. I think all of these announcing crews are pretty horrible. Learn very little and have to suffer all the corny catch phrases.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,928
Probably discussed in the other thread, but it is certainly interesting the stinker the Nuggets brought last night in a chance to close out Minnesota. I wonder how the national media will evaluate that?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
35,735
I kind of think a lot of the coverage of the Celtics being the way it is comes from the Celtics dominating in a way people find uninteresting.
It's kind of like.... what if the Duncan Spurs had been one of the big market, big attention teams?
The Celtics are putting up a historic season so far, and one of the more dominant playoff runs as well..... but they are doing it by just kind of casually beating teams by 10-20 most games and usually never tied or trailing in the 2nd half. Not a lot of close moments late. And beyond that... they are doing it by playing solid defense and spreading the scoring love. No 40 point games, no 50 point games, just workman-like good team basketball.....

And for all that everyone claims they love good winning team basketball......

What they really want is to talk about close games, or at least big scoring efforts. It's why despite being a far better player, people talked about Iverson way more than Duncan. Because little man score many points, play bad defense every game close is more fun to most people than... 5 guys in double figures, lead vascilates between 7 and 20 all second half.... game over.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
12,636
Probably discussed in the other thread, but it is certainly interesting the stinker the Nuggets brought last night in a chance to close out Minnesota. I wonder how the national media will evaluate that?
Did Tatum play?
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
45,907
Melrose, MA
Please back this with actual game stats/ video.

They’re beating playoff teams by double digits.. often up by 20+ in the fourth. I’m guessing they have a lot more data that shows that slowing the game in the fourth wins a lot more games.

Borderline incompetence?? That is just a ridiculous statement. Teams go on runs and the Celtics can miss shots… not sure why the eye test matters more than actual stats.
I hate that this place has become such a safe space that criticism is only barely allowed.

But I’ll just say this - none of @lovegtm’s arguments, none of which I’m saying are wrong - are geared towards convincing a skeptic. It’s more of a hagiography. That has its place, but if the goal is to convince, it’s not enough.

As to winning games big, we did that for a whole half season under Ime. And it did not carry over to the finals against Golden State.

I don’t have an option on whether the Celtics are a better team, offensively or otherwise, than Denver. But in the final 2 minutes of a close game no question in my mind I’d rather be Denver. How much of that is personnel vs system I don’t know, but Denver who I’d expect to see the better scoring opportunities in that situation.
 

JoeSuit

New Member
Feb 9, 2017
124
Dedes' whole presentation was borderline unlistenable. "Finds the laces" was the most egregious, but a close second was the extreme emphasis placed on average shots in inconsequential moments. Screaming a players name when they make a basket doesn't change the fact that it was an average jump shot by a team down 10 in the beginning of the third. Save that shit for when something meaningful happens.
Boy do I agree with this post. I wish a little energy would have been put into telling us who the foul was on, how many fouls does he have and what number of team fouls there are. On the latter, neither the ESPN nor the TNT on screen scoreboards don't show team fouls.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
13,564
But I’ll just say this - none of @lovegtm’s arguments, none of which I’m saying are wrong - are geared towards convincing a skeptic. It’s more of a hagiography. That has its place, but if the goal is to convince, it’s not enough.
This criticism isn't remotely fair, and you know it. Post better, and get better at watching basketball.

The Cs could absolutely lose the title this year, and there are absolutely ways to drag their offense into the mud. I'm breaking down what they are trying to accomplish on offense and the general approach/philosophy, which is fairly obvious once you know what to look for on film.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
6,286
Lynn
I’m sorry, it’s such horse shit to say that there isn’t negativity allowed here. I’ve been plenty negative at times, same for almost everyone else here.

When you’re negative with no substance, it’s fair game to get called out. We all used to be wrong quite often, and learned that you need actual ammo for your argument. Which means allowing yourself to admit you’re wrong, and learn more about the game.

There’s stats/tracking for everything now. It doesn’t mean they are always the answer, but you can’t just wave your hand because you disagree with what it shows, it’s incredibly petulant.