Well, that is possible too. Especially if they have their eyes on an even bigger Klutch prize.At that point I’d just have to shrug and say “Klutch?” And I don’t even particularly buy that theory.
Well, that is possible too. Especially if they have their eyes on an even bigger Klutch prize.At that point I’d just have to shrug and say “Klutch?” And I don’t even particularly buy that theory.
Yeah, I mean that’s the theory. Who knows at this point.Well, that is possible too. Especially if they have their eyes on an even bigger Klutch prize.
No sir, not asking you to prove a negative.The problem is that you keep asking people to prove a negative. I can’t show you stats where Stevens played them for long periods in unfavorable matchups because he’s a smart enough coach to try to limit Baynes/Theis/Williams to situations they have a better chance of success in. Then you want to pick out per 100 stats and point to them as a reason to do it more when I see them as evidence that what he is doing is working. We simply don’t agree on the cause and effect relationship.
Well, could I raise the possibility that they know Baynes/Horford could, and has, worked analytically but haven't had much opportunity to go back to it?We know this coach and management team are highly analytically oriented. We certainly know this coach spends an inordinate amount of time watching film, using stats, etc. it’s exhausting to read this Horford at the 4 and the world is out to get Jaylen Brown drumbeat because it almost requires the entire management structure to be buffoons. It just doesn’t track, you need more evidence than what we have available to us publicly.
100% Bingo!The problem is that you keep asking people to prove a negative. I can’t show you stats where Stevens played them for long periods in unfavorable matchups because he’s a smart enough coach to try to limit Baynes/Theis/Williams to situations they have a better chance of success in. Then you want to pick out per 100 stats and point to them as a reason to do it more when I see them as evidence that what he is doing is working. We simply don’t agree on the cause and effect relationship.
We know this coach and management team are highly analytically oriented. We certainly know this coach spends an inordinate amount of time watching film, using stats, etc. it’s exhausting to read this Horford at the 4 and the world is out to get Jaylen Brown drumbeat because it almost requires the entire management structure to be buffoons. It just doesn’t track, you need more evidence than what we have available to us publicly.
My post was pointing out real problems that we will need to resolve in a basketball x and o sense to play more of these lineups. I earnestly believe that if we send Baynes and Horford out there especially in close and late situations you will see teams force switches to get Baynes into their lead scorer. This is how we play defense, and he does a credible job when asked to do this but it’s very risky and puts a lot of pressure on the team defense. One of the reasons why Horford is so damn valuable is because he has shown the ability to handle those switches better than most players his size
Literally nobody is saying this.You're saying Baynes/Horford can't play together.
So whenever Baynes/Horford play together its a "favorable matchup" and that's why it has worked extremely well for 2yrs now.100% Bingo!
Literally nobody is saying this.
You have not discussed matchups you have simply repeated generalities of them playing together while reciting stats when Brad has put them in favorable matchups.
This is straight bullshit. Literally you have been saying this. All year long.100% Bingo!
Literally nobody is saying this.
We are discussing specific matchups and how it is difficult to play two bigs against teams who space the floor. Brad in his recent interviews discusses matchups and how it is difficult to play two bigs in today’s game against teams who space the floor but how in some matchups we can.
You have not discussed matchups you have simply repeated generalities of them playing together while reciting stats when Brad has put them in favorable matchups.
You'd also imagine MaMo would be less exposed defending more 2nd unit guys.One element about playing Baynes more that hasn't been discussed much here, is Baynes is the one player on this roster that will put his body on someone all game. To me, having a big body to muck it up in the paint is valuable to a guy like Horford, who is an older big and isn't all that physical, except for the few spots in a game when he really needs to be.
Alleged tough guy Morris hasn't showed me a lot of physicality this season. If the brain trust thinks they're better off with an undersized, perimeter oriented 4 to pair with AL at the 5, either Brown or Hayward to me is a better option to create a smaller line up, with Tatum or Brown/Hayward covering the opponent's small-4.
In general, I like a starting lineup of AL, Baymes, Tatum, Smart, and Kyrie, for the muck-it-up factor that Baynes brings, and also because there is one less offensive mouth to feed in that starting lineup. They should be able to put up big points to start a game, and if for some reason the other team is torching our 4 and 5, there's an easy solution. Sub in MaMo or Hayward, or Theis, or whatever is needed to make an adjustment.
Personally, I’m on the start anyone except Morris side. I basically unilaterally would prefer any of Baynes, Hayward, or Brown starting over Morris. Among those three I think it’s a toss up and matchup dependent.I don't even remember what side of this discussion I am on.
The one that wishes we could move on from a debate for which there will be no winners?I don't even remember what side of this discussion I am on.
My working theory for awhile, unarticulated here, is that Stevens has been hoping Hayward will be ready to start by the playoffs but also recognizes you can only change the rotation so many times.
Brad has already said what he's planning on doing but the twin towers vs teams who space supporters continue to ignore two years of evidence as well as his recent words that the lineup will change on a game-by-game basis based on matchups.In the end, Stevens and the Cs will continue to do what they decide to do. Sad to say but no amount of input from our crowd-sourced coaching wisdom will change that unless/until bayneshogan or HRB assume a front office or head coaching role with the team (my only request is we bring Rocco back and give him choice seats near the restroom at the Garden).
In your words (post #3500) on Monday:
Brad has already said what he's planning on doing but the twin towers vs teams who space supporters continue to ignore two years of evidence as well as his recent words that the lineup will change on a game-by-game basis based on matchups.
“That will be a game-to-game decision on who we start. I told our two guys today, and you need guys like Morris who are flexible like that. I thought Morris came in, and I thought his two 3’s in the late third, fourth, whatever it was, were huge. But when we can start double big, we certainly clog things up the way we need to on that end of the floor.”
Kyrie likes playing with Baynes because he sets screens.
All of Australia makes for a pretty big dog.And big dog guards the house, so we need that.
Baynes is undeniably a great screen setter. I can see why any shooting guard would want to be on the floor with him. I wish he could teach that skill to Time Lord, who sets screens like he's going through the motions and just wants to get it over with.Kyrie likes playing with Baynes because he sets screens.
Screens are so 1985.
Kyrie likes playing with Baynes because he sets screens.
This is by far the best theory I’ve seen so far re Morris. It also makes sense for Brown: they don’t want to put him back in the starting lineup unless he’s going to stay there (ie they think Hayward isn’t ready for it).Personally, I’m on the start anyone except Morris side. I basically unilaterally would prefer any of Baynes, Hayward, or Brown starting over Morris. Among those three I think it’s a toss up and matchup dependent.
My working theory for awhile, unarticulated here, is that Stevens has been hoping Hayward will be ready to start by the playoffs but also recognizes you can only change the rotation so many times. So, Morris has kept his role for stability pending Stevens deciding on a playoff rotation and shifting to it.
Unrelated to all of the above, people have drawn analogies to the 2011 Red Sox. People should remember that the result of that season was the Sox making a change from a very very good manager to one that turned out to not be so great. We should learn from that lesson and not ignore everything we knew about Brad going into this season because of one season of underperformance.
Lol, well played.I think we can all agree that this team has finally figured it all out.
It seems that Brad and Kyrie know what side of the discussion they are on. Baynes was outstanding last night. His defense, screen setting and rebounding had a big impact on the game. All of Australia should be starting unless matchups dictate otherwise in which case Hayward or Brown should get the nod. I hope MaMo never gets another start unless the game is truly meaningless.Brad's pre-game media interview I heard on the radio endorsed the AL/Baynes due as the team's best starting line up. Kyrie endorsed Baynes because of his physicality. Neither mentioned the danger of AL (or Baynes) having to defend 4s. Stevens said something to the effect of "If it's not working to start a game, we can just make a change and go smaller."
Agreed. I like the Baynes/Horford combo starting but if we go away from it for whatever reason, for the love of god get MaMo out.It seems that Brad and Kyrie know what side of the discussion they are on. Baynes was outstanding last night. His defense, screen setting and rebounding had a big impact on the game. All of Australia should be starting unless matchups dictate otherwise in which case Hayward or Brown should get the nod. I hope MaMo never gets another start unless the game is truly meaningless.
Nice, 100% agree. Was this pre-game today or last night?media interview I heard on the radio endorsed the AL/Baynes due as the team's best starting line up. Kyrie endorsed Baynes because of his physicality. Neither mentioned the danger of AL (or Baynes) having to defend 4s. Stevens said something to the effect of "If it's not working to start a game, we can just make a change and go smaller."
Everybody, including Brad Stevens and Kyrie Irving, agrees with you. The only person who doesn’t is HRB, who, for all his valuable insight re hoops, is well-known for never being able to admit when he’s wrong, to a hilarious degree.Nice, 100% agree. Was this pre-game today or last night?
There is no danger with Al Horford covering a single starting 4 in the NBA. NOT ONE. Not Wilson Chandler, not Finney-Smith, not PJ Tucker, not Draymond Green, not Pascal Siakam, etc. The red flag with Al being unable to chase around quick 4's is completely false. Defensively the Celtics switch on the perimeter, they always have. Horford's more than fine on the perimeter, in fact, he's good at it. His wingspan helps challenge the 3pt shot and he's more than capable of staying in front of wings or swatting their shots around the rim. That's why the Celtics have been their best with Horford at the 4. And its why Al was playing his best at the 4 in 2016-17 (w/Amir Johnson), in 2017-18 (w/Aron Baynes), and this season w/Baynes, TL & Theis. Horford's outperformance at the 4 wasn't driven by matchups in 2016-17 or 2017-18, and it's just an excuse that's being used by people that got it wrong this season. Its the same false narrative that playing two 6'10" players at the 4/5 is abnormally big OR a Twin Towers* pairing.
*Twin Towers was originally 7'4" Ralph Sampson & 7' Akeem Olajuwon
You know it and truth be told mcpickl got this more right than me.Everybody, including Brad Stevens and Kyrie Irving, agrees with you. The only person who doesn’t is HRB, who, for all his valuable insight re hoops, is well-known for never being able to admit when he’s wrong, to a hilarious degree.
Shall we all move to a new topic now? The playoffs are coming, the Celtics seem to have some idea of the lineups they’re going to use there, but there’s a ton of other work to be done.
It’s also satisfying that to some degree we’re starting to understand some of the mysteries of the season.You know it and truth be told mcpickl got this more right than me.
We even got Jaylen minutes > MaMo minutes last night, what else is there to fix other than
HRB's mea culpa
Damn awesome...It’s also satisfying that to some degree we’re starting to understand some of the mysteries of the season.
3. Danny would have gotten away with it all too, if it weren’t for those kids and their damn dog.
MaMo is by far our worst defensive player for 2 years running, putting him in the position to help defend the rim borders on comical.Last 15 games, Hayward +/- = 1.9 (second best among rotation players); MaMo -5.6 (worst on the entire team by far) .
This absolutely passes the eye testLast 15 games, Hayward +/- = 1.9 (second best among rotation players); MaMo -5.6 (worst on the entire team by far) .
Monroe's 10-day contract expired last night.Not that it's the most up to date but he's still on the roster page at Celtics.com as of the time of this post.
I’m still annoyed that Danny didn’t trade him at the deadline.What death said. Morris is the problem on this team. His interest level is solely in jacking up shots.