Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2018 Celtics Game Threads' started by DrewDawg, Feb 3, 2019.
Dropping 134 on OKC is impressive as hell.
HRB says: Home win, no count!
meh, these ebbs and flows happen against elite teams. Have to roll with it and find a way to win.
I love high team assist counts more than anything. Give me that or 200 points and I’ll choose assists every single time.
Celtics played 9 guys, 8 of whom hit double figures tonight.
What? It is unsurprising it was a close game. Glad it's good enough for you, though. Now BEAT LA!
Kyrie with 30 on 14/19 FGs aaaaand.... one free throw attempt.
Why should this game not have been close? Please use data, not feelings.
Yeah, that wasn't a foul. Westbrook fell down because he took a funky off balance shot. Kyrie didn't push him.
A most productive afteroon collectively, bodes well going forward.
Probably the disparity in FTs (34-17)? And the feeling that the Celtics outplayed/outhustled the Thunder for most of the game. Without the FTs it's not a particularly close game as the Thunder outscored the Celts by 12 there.
IMO, we can't really expect anything but close games against good teams (at best), when this is the case:
Celtics played 9 guys, 8 of whom hit double figures tonight.
Until Brad starts giving bigger minutes to Smart/Jaylen/Tatum and less to Rozier/Gordon, there is no chance to pull away and win comfortably against good teams. 9 guys got 17 minutes tonight. They just aren't that "deep" that they can blow teams out with their 9 best players.
Who knows though. Maybe if he limits the minutes at the bottom end, the games will still be close. Like I keep saying, I just hope that he doesn't continue to do this come playoff time.
Three down and one to go if you count the Sox’ last game.
If Tatum finishes the fast break instead of the Westbrook three the other way, it probably ends up a 3-4 possession game.
Just to be clear, this is what I'm talking about:
Grant: 33 minutes
Westbrook: 37 minutes
Adams: 36 minutes
Ferguson: 34 minutes
George: 39 minutes
Kyrie: 37 minutes
Horford: 31 minutes
Morris: 33 minutes
Smart: 28 minutes
Tatum: 31 minutes
Our best 5 players (arguably) played a collective 19 less minutes than OKC's best players. I don't know how anyone can expect anything other than a close game, when their best players are playing so much more than ours.
Great win. 2 for 2 on the day. Let’s make it 3 for 3
OKC took 35 3's pointers today.
The Celtics took 34 3's today.
Both teams took exactly 47 2 pointers:
OKC got 34 foul shots
The Celtics got 17 foul shots.
We must be taking a ton of jumpers inside the arc or something.
Stevens is a wizard
Rozier played just 16 minutes tonight. They have one of the best point differentials in the league. No one regularly wins comfortably against good teams.
Guess it’s time to watch golf for an hour.
Yeah, this game looked like a dogfight from the early going. Both teams came out really intense and were playing at a high level.
Presumably Brad is intimately aware of all this. Doesn't this suggest that the team has decided that spreading minutes in the regular season is more important than squeezing out wins, even at the expense of 2nd or 3rd round home-court?
Not saying I agree, but just the fact that Smart doesn't play 35/game indicates this pretty heavily.
pretty much agree with the bolded.
Brad has been unnecessarily forcing Gordon minutes from day 1 this season. Should have been a slow build from opening night. Rozier should be 15mpg and Kyrie injury insurance the rest of the season.
Because the Celtics played badly at the beginning of the third quarter, and again at the end. They should have never let OKC back into the game. Then they had a 12 point lead midway in the fourth quarter, and let them back into the game again. They took their foot off the throat, and if you do that against a team with Westbrook and George, it's at your peril.
I don't like exciting wins. I like to watch the Celtics dribble out the clock.
I think he was talking about points scored when he said double digits.
Sure. That is probably the reason. I'm just trying to come up with an explanation as to why folks shouldn't expect a blow out against a good team. If we're going to spread minutes around to 9 different guys, while our opponent is playing their best guys, we simply aren't going to pull away and put teams away very often.
Yup, 100% agree. Based on Brad's track record, I think we'll see the rotations tighten a lot in the playoffs. Smart and Brown simply have to play more if Hayward is like this. Rozier can play 10 mins/night in Kyrie's bench time, but he can't be on the floor taking minutes from Smart.
The Celtics won this game by five points. Their opponent had a slightly better record than them and featured two all stars to Boston's one all star. The average margin of victory this season in the NBA is 3.1 points. This was a good win but if anyone wants to take issue with it, its their prerogative.
People shouldn't expect a blow out against good teams because the other team is good. I'm not sure why you'd need another reason.
The bolded is what I'm worried about. I'm not sure where this idea that Brad significantly changes his minute distribution come playoff time comes from. Last year was a bit of a different story because of the injuries to Gordon/Kyrie/Theis, so he had a pretty short bench, especially when the season was on the line in game 7 against the Bucks, and in the series against the Cavs.
But aside from those moments, Brad has been pretty consistent with his usage patters in the regular season and the post-season. On occasion, he'll substitute a guy's minutes for a different guy, but he still rarely sends his starters out there 40 minutes a night. The Amir Johnson in the starting lineup thing a couple years ago drove me fucking insane. Night after night, Amir would start, the C's would get destroyed and then Brad would bench him, and the C's would come back...
I really, really, REALLY hope he has the guts to bench Gordon come playoff time if he looks like this. I personally think the #2 seed is way more important than spreading the minutes around right now, but Brad apparently doesn't believe that (at least not yet), but come playoff time, it better be more important to win games than to keep his protege happy.
The average margin of victory in the NBA is 3.1 points right now. People expecting blowouts are unrealistic and, imho, are looking for reasons to complain. And as we have discussed before, the NBA doesn't weight seeding based on points.
Again, you have another three plus hours to stress - this was a good win. Take the W and LFG Patriots.
You watch enough basketball to know that wire-to-wire leads are rare. This is not how the NBA works and certainly not when two good teams play one another. I don't get it. This was a good win and yet people are looking for reasons to complain about it.
I'm not even upset about this game. You have me confused with someone else. I'm just giving a reason as to why folks should NOT expect a larger margin of victory.
That said, you keep citing this statistic as if it means anything. Just to be clear, if the Celtics beat the Cavs today by 4 points, you'd be happy with that because the average margin of victory in the NBA is 3.1 points? I mean shit, why watch the games? Every game should be decided by 3.1 points, and if one team exceeds that, they played good, and the other played bad? Right? No need to actually watch and see what happened.
Apologies - I misunderstood your post. And I keep quoting the stat because people talk about "blowouts" in these threads. If you aren't gambling, I would argue that you shouldn't care about the score. Just the actual outcome.
And yes, if the Cs beat Cleveland by four, I would be just as happy as if it were 24. I realize some nights teams play above their record while others play down to their competition. It happens during the grind of a 16, 80, 82 or 162 game season. A win is a win for seeding purposes or, in the playoffs for a race to the series decisive margin. Getting caught up in the score seems to miss the forrest for the trees imho but others are welcome to draw their own conclusions of course.
But once again, if someone expects routine blowouts, wire-to-wire leads or leads that stay pretty much constant, I would argue they are willfully ignoring fairly large sample sets of data.
See, I'm happy with today's win because I thought the C's thoroughly outplayed the Thunder from start to finish. I think the C's would have blown them out if not for a bunch of late offensive rebounds the Thunder got (which they wouldn't normally if the C's have Baynes), and for the huge disparity at the free throw line, which I feel was undeserved. Add to that the Thunder started the game 10/20 from deep (which is exceptional for them), and the C's started really cold, and in the end, a 5 point win is a good result.
But, I don't think every win is created equal. A win is a win in the books, but if there are tendencies/bad habits/questionable coaching decisions that are happening on a regular basis, and aren't being corrected, it's ok to talk about them, even after a win.
They've won 10 of 11, so they're doing what they need to do right now and that's really good. We'll find out in a couple weeks if it's a sign that they are actually a Finals contender, or if they're a pretender who was just winning games they should have won. At Philly, at Toronto and at Milwaukee in a two week span is going to tell us a lot. I just want to see them put their best foot forward in those games, and IMO, Gordon Hayward's feet should be excluded a bit more at that time.
What I miss?