Analysis of Celtics Games, '21-'22 Season

RSN Diaspora

molests goats for comedy
SoSH Member
Jul 29, 2005
11,346
Washington, DC
I think Ime's sample size is too small to make a determination, especially when you consider that he seems no worse than Brad (would anyone be surprised to see Coach Stevens with the same record at this point?). But there clearly needs to be some kind of shake-up. There's too much combined talent for them to be playing like this.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,159
Fournier was pretty amazing last night, I have to give it to him. A couple of the buckets he made were just unreal. That 3 pointer he made in the corner while falling over? Sometimes you just got to tip your cap.

On a different topic, I'm a huge Jaylen Brown fan - he's been my favorite player on the Celtics for years now - but the turnovers are getting a bit much. Maybe he's pressing too much, or trying too hard to be a facilitator when it's not his game - I don't know. But, it seems to be a real problem.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
This all may be correct - and to be clear, on paper I agree with you - but if you look at the individual production, it doesn't support the idea that they upgraded in talent. They got better in some areas and worse in others. Aside from us feeling that way, there is no way to support the position that this team is more talented than last season. And last season they were a .500 team.

Edit: You can certainly Van the data with SSS sword to make individual cases but the sum of everything is that they are a middling team, talent-wise.
I have no idea how you are evaluating "talent" here. By default you can't look at what they are doing this year to determine their talent level when trying to see if they underperform. You are looking at performance if you do that, not an estimate of baseline talent.

My basis of talent level is production over the last several years for players who have not had major injuries. I look at the production of the guys they added over the 2 to 3 previous seasons, and compare it to the guys they lost (and taking to an extent into account for Kemba that he suffered a career altering injury).

I've said that I think the talent of this team is 4-5 seed in the East, .550-.600 basketball. I think that's pretty fair as an assesment, based on performance in previous years of the same players, and accounting for age/injuries. This was a team that was looking to upgrade talent anyway (likely a reason they took Schroder, he's not a long term fix, but he has more talent than our bench options and that may return some value).

Writing off the team as simply "mediocre talent" and then not assessing why they are performing poorly is not productive to me. We have a decent guess on the talent of this team, it's more than their production, how much more... there is room to debate. The question becomes... why are they performing how they are, and how do you fix that through coaching and personnel moves.

I think Ime's sample size is too small to make a determination, especially when you consider that he seems no worse than Brad (would anyone be surprised to see Coach Stevens with the same record at this point?). But there clearly needs to be some kind of shake-up. There's too much combined talent for them to be playing like this.
I think it's a small sample size to predict his future, but... I do not think he's no worse than Brad, I see significant failures that are both worse than, and different than the issues Stevens had. For one... Stevens was much better at getting plays called and executed ATO, Brad was more willing to be flexible with his rotations when something wasn't working, Brad didn't run his bigs into the ground, Brad took responsibility for his mistakes.

Now Brad had issues... the team appeared to have tuned him out, he wasn't always consistent with minutes for young guys, he waited too long to take a TO to stop a run, he didn't appear willing/able to challenge guys who coasted, but as a tactical coach, he was clearly better than what Ime has shown so far.
 
Last edited:

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
5,204
Lynn
Fournier was pretty amazing last night, I have to give it to him. A couple of the buckets he made were just unreal. That 3 pointer he made in the corner while falling over? Sometimes you just got to tip your cap.

On a different topic, I'm a huge Jaylen Brown fan - he's been my favorite player on the Celtics for years now - but the turnovers are getting a bit much. Maybe he's pressing too much, or trying too hard to be a facilitator when it's not his game - I don't know. But, it seems to be a real problem.
It’s Jaylen’s sixth season, and he still has more turnovers than assists (80 to 64), on one of the higher usages in the league. Jaylen will improve the fringes of his game some, but I think he’s entering is what he is territory, for the most part.

I’ve long wished the team and Jaylen would shift his game towards more off ball, and less of him initiating the offense. But a big part of that is the team lacks playmakers, so he’s forced to do it a lot more than I’m comfortable with. He now holds the ball about as long as Tatum, 3.2 seconds per touch for Jaylen to 3.6 for JT. Quick decision making Jaylen has disappeared, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The people who keep claiming that this team is underperforming their talent need to show their work. Its been a season of a half of a .500 or less basketball. What hidden gems are on this roster? What players aren't getting enough looks offensively? What defensive stoppers are being held back?

I can save everyone some time and tell you that if you simply grade out this roster, based on their production, versus the top teams in the league, its not a surprise. They aren't as talented as those squads - if Tatum and Brown are supposed to make an extra pass to the open guy, but that open guy is almost certainly throwing up a brick, is it really a surprise if they try to do it themselves?

This team is Tatum and Brown, a few decent rotation players and the rest is below league average production. Maybe there is a coaching deficiency too but across two different staffs, the results are ~ the same.

If this team has enough talent, its really, really obscured by something else. If their 54-57 record across two seasons isn't enough, what are we missing in traditional or advanced stats that shows the underperformance?
We have an awful W/L record in close games this year and Jayson Tatum’s “Clutch” eFG is 31% on the year which is down significantly from prior years. We can begin there.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
I've said that I think the talent of this team is 4-5 seed in the East, .550-.600 basketball. I think that's pretty fair as an assesment, based on performance in previous years of the same players, and accounting for age/injuries.
Again, I would have agreed with you before the start of the season and into early November. But the facts on the ground don't support this position nor does the individual data.

Edit: And we can Van the data all we want about clutch FG and 4th quarters. But the fact remains, they are 54-57 across one and a half seasons of basketball. Those clutch situations and fourth quarters happened. And this is the result. Its not like they are leaving a lot on the table statistically. They have a bottom third offense after being a bottom half offensive team last year. What am I missing here? What can be done with this team to unlock more than a few more wins? And if so, why aren't they doing it?
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,500
Like I get what you are saying. Building the lead was fluky off hot shooting and runs happen all the time in the NBA, but my point is that teams with a 16+ point lead at the half generally win like 90% of the time right? I am having trouble finding anything official but a 20 point lead is usually 95-97% as best as I can find, so as long as you don't choke down the stretch you SHOULD win that game regardless of how the lead was built. That's all I am saying.
I think we can all agree that the Cs aren't like most other teams in the NBA. :)

HRB's point is that at one point in the 2Q, the Cs hit 8 out of 9 3Ps. Were these good shots? A lot of them were wide open. (I actually watched the first half.)

If these were good shots, then can you criticize the Cs for taking what I assume were more or less the same shots in the 2H?

Conversely, if the shots in the 2H were bad, does that mean the shots in the 1H were bad but they just happened to go in?

Frankly, the final way to look at it is that it was a fluke that the Cs had a 24 point lead.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,154
San Francisco
Perhaps both Udoka and Stevens held some/all of these players back with their bad coaching - that is entirely possible.

At what point, across two entirely different coaching regimes are people willing concede that this is who the roster is at present (these things are dynamic of course - a leap or a change in personnel may unlock something)? Dismissing last season's results as a function of the pandemic was a lot easier back in October and even into November. Not so much now.

In short, its hard not to conclude that this team simply doesn't have the talent to overcome a down Tatum year and do anything other than what they are doing. This is who this roster is. Again, if someone can make a case supported by anything other than an opinion (and again, I shared this opinion to start the season), please do so.
I think NBA teams follow the 80/20 rule for production, so the fact that you concede Tatum is having a (very) down year already does a lot of the work to argue this is not who this roster is.

Again, I would have agreed with you before the start of the season and into early November. But the facts on the ground don't support this position nor does the individual data.

Edit: And we can Van the data all we want about clutch FG and 4th quarters. But the fact remains, they are 54-57 across one and a half seasons of basketball. Those clutch situations and fourth quarters happened. And this is the result. Its not like they are leaving a lot on the table statistically. They have a bottom third offense after being a bottom half offensive team last year. What am I missing here? What can be done with this team to unlock more than a few more wins? And if so, why aren't they doing it?
The Celtics adjusted offensive rating (points per 100 possessions with opponent defense adjustments) was 10th in the NBA last year. They were an above average to good ish offense last year. Source: 2020 league ratings
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,298
deep inside Guido territory
Execution down the stretch of basketball games is far different than baseball. There isn’t a whole lot of “luck” involved in winning/losing 1-2 possession basketball games.

Ironically, last night may have been one of them with Barrett’s ridiculous desperation 3-pointer that beat us. I’m not concerned with “blowing a 20-pt lead” as that lead was built on 6(?) consecutive 3-pointers which isn’t sustainable. This wasn’t the issue of “choking” or whatever you want to call it. Ime was correct, nobody stepped up to stop the runs when we needed to and the Knicks executed better in the 4Q. This team has plenty of talent but is a bungle of mess right now. It will be interesting to see what Brad does from now to the deadline.
They need something, anything to shake the roster up and try to get them out of the funk they're in. Tatum and Brown are way too talented to be the head of a roster that is fighting for a play in spot. Someone said upthread that they're getting it into the paint but not getting the ball kicked out for a 3 pointer. Problem is who are the shooters they are kicking it out to? Smart, Horford, Schroder, and Tatum are all having terrible shooting years from 3. The only regulars that are shooting above 35% from 3 are Brown, Richardson, and G Williams. Pritchard is as well, but he hardly plays.

It's just so apparent that when a team makes a run that the Celtics fold up shop and just let it happen. It's disheartening that Ime hasn't it out of them, but the players have to want to do it as a collective group. There's too many veteran players that have played in big playoff games to just do what they've been doing.
 

billy ashley

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,228
Washington DC
So it's clear that this team isn't winning anything this season. If they inch into the playoffs, it's going to be a short stay. With the Brown clock starting to tick, I have to imagine that Brad is going to make a bunch of moves.

They should be looking at jettisoning whatever they can that won't be helping them next year and the year after. The recent draftees are likely not the answer for the team's long term plans, but they're not going to know for sure unless they play them. Further, Schroder, Horford and especially Josh Richardson could help real contenders in rotational roles. I don't expect they'll net much (save maybe Richardson) but they're not leading to success, here.

Breaking down the roster:

The Core not to be traded:

Taytum
Brown

Brown may be a flawed overall player, but he still has it in him to an excellent 2nd option on an exceptional team. Further, due to his nagging injuries this year and turn over struggles, I doubt that he and he alone nets the Celtics another star. They're kind of stuck with Brown because he has a lot of value to the team at present time, and enough questions that trading him won't likely make the team better. Short of a full-blown rebuild, they can deal him.

Tatum's shooting has been terrible this year, but he still contributes a ton defensively and has been getting to the line a bunch this season. 2022 has been disappointing for him, but I have to think that some of this is due to the fact that the supporting cast is pretty miserable.


Potentially part of the future but movable for a star:

Smart
Williams

Marcus Smart is having a nice season. He's a huge contributor on defense and I like some of what he's done in terms of ball movement. I think he needs to be the full time PG for the remainder of the season to see if he's a solution long-term. Right now, he's not really gotten that chance. He's a solid contributor and would make an ideal 6th man on many teams, but in the current roster, he's at worst the fourth-best player on the team. The contract is movable, and I could see Smart helping a team with championship hopes but that's the rub - he's not really good enough for a bad team to give up premium picks for,. He's most appealing to teams buying for win now and on those teams, he's probably a 6th man. He is a good NBA player... like a rich man's Josh Richardson.

Of anyone of the Celtics not featuring first names that start with Jay, Robert Williams is the only person on this roster who could be an All Star. He does so many things well that it's easy to dream on him. Even if he doesn't grow the offensive skill set, he's a more than capable NBA center. The health is as always a concern but there's no real reason to be unhappy with what he's done for the season thus far. If Boston does trade for a third star, I would guess that Williams is included (along with a boatload of picks) in that deal due to his contract, and upside.


A mixed bag of unproven youngsters with flashes of competence/ possibly rotational guys:

Grant Williams
Romeo Langord
Payton Prichard

Aaron Nesmith
(maybe) Sam Hauser

Grant stands out in this group, as being the most likely to be a nice complimentary player. I love Romeo's defense but his offense has been terrible. It might be worth giving him a ton of minutes going forward to seeing if there's any ability there. Prichard has had his flashes, but is of course deeply flawed on defense. Nesmith is just kind of a mess out there. None of these guys are super exciting, but unless they get regular reps for the rest of the season, Boston won't be able to confidently tell if any of these guys could be useful rotation players. If they're stuck in neutral this year, why not see if any of these guys could be a part of the solution or possibly build some trade value.

Useful vets who do nothing for the Celtics long term

Horford
Schroder
Richardson
(Maybe) Freedom

Richardson has probably rehabed his value a great deal this year. He looks like a solid 6th man for a good club. Horford is an excellent back up/ rotational big.I'm a skeptic on Schroder's trade value, but they might as well see what they can get for all of them. Freedom probably doesn't even get you a 2nd round pick, but he seems like a better fit than the last group.

Org Flotsom:
Hernangomez
Bruno Fernando

I don't know if these guys aren't in Europe as soon as their current contracts expire.

To me, everyone not named Jay should be shopped. Whatever younger players remain should be given minutes to see if they're part of the answer next year. The tock is ticking and it seems insane not to try to rework the team.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
I think NBA teams follow the 80/20 rule for production, so the fact that you concede Tatum is having a (very) down year already does a lot of the work to argue this is not who this roster is.


The Celtics adjusted offensive rating (points per 100 possessions with opponent defense adjustments) was 10th in the NBA last year. They were an above average to good ish offense last year. Source: 2020 league ratings
You are correct on both fronts and if you want me to concede that they were average-to-slightly better than that last year offensively I won't disagree. They were still middling overall by most metrics and it was confirmed by their record as it is this season.

Back to the talent issue there is no question they would likely have better results if Tatum was better. This is exactly the point. Almost every NBA team is dependent to a large degree on their star players but the good ones have enough secondary players to carry some of the load when they are off. This roster doesn't have many of those guys and the ones they do have - Smart, Horford, Richardson, Schroder, Grant, Freedom aren't volume scorers or consistent enough playmakers to compensate.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,159
For me, Schroeder is gone for sure.

Richardson is still a potentially useful piece for next year's, hopefully, better ballclub. The part that is difficult for me to evaluate is whether holding onto Richardson and Horford past the deadline is useful trade ballast in the summer.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
Again, I would have agreed with you before the start of the season and into early November. But the facts on the ground don't support this position nor does the individual data.
I mean.... that is performance not talent. If you look at AJ Brown you gauge his talent... if he has 2 catches for 20 yards in a game, you don't say "guess he's not talented". Performance over a short period and talent are two different things. If you have talent and your performance trails it... you are underperforming your talent. Poor performance over a small sample should not change your estimation of talent that was made over much longer periods.

Edit- to use a basketball reference instead of football. Steph Curry had a stretch last year of a month plus where he shot about 20% worse than his average from 3... did his talent level go down? Or did he just underperform his talent level?
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
10,016
Fournier was pretty amazing last night, I have to give it to him. A couple of the buckets he made were just unreal. That 3 pointer he made in the corner while falling over? Sometimes you just got to tip your cap.

On a different topic, I'm a huge Jaylen Brown fan - he's been my favorite player on the Celtics for years now - but the turnovers are getting a bit much. Maybe he's pressing too much, or trying too hard to be a facilitator when it's not his game - I don't know. But, it seems to be a real problem.
I was working for much of the night---sadly, I missed the part of the game where the C's played well---but the box score lists Brown with three turnovers, which for him doesn't seem unusually high. Were they especially egregious? Is the box score wrong?

The lack of ball security on the part of both Tatum and Jaylen is maddening. So many empty possessions.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
I was working for much of the night---sadly, I missed the part of the game where the C's played well---but the box score lists Brown with three turnovers, which for him doesn't seem unusually high. Were they especially egregious? Is the box score wrong?

The lack of ball security on the part of both Tatum and Jaylen is maddening. So many empty possessions.
He didn't touch the ball for long stretches, and he didn't initiate much.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,275
I have no idea how you are evaluating "talent" here. By default you can't look at what they are doing this year to determine their talent level when trying to see if they underperform. You are looking at performance if you do that, not an estimate of baseline talent.

My basis of talent level is production over the last several years for players who have not had major injuries. I look at the production of the guys they added over the 2 to 3 previous seasons, and compare it to the guys they lost (and taking to an extent into account for Kemba that he suffered a career altering injury).

I've said that I think the talent of this team is 4-5 seed in the East, .550-.600 basketball. I think that's pretty fair as an assesment, based on performance in previous years of the same players, and accounting for age/injuries. This was a team that was looking to upgrade talent anyway (likely a reason they took Schroder, he's not a long term fix, but he has more talent than our bench options and that may return some value).

Writing off the team as simply "mediocre talent" and then not assessing why they are performing poorly is not productive to me. We have a decent guess on the talent of this team, it's more than their production, how much more... there is room to debate. The question becomes... why are they performing how they are, and how do you fix that through coaching and personnel moves.



I think it's a small sample size to predict his future, but... I do not think he's no worse than Brad, I see significant failures that are both worse than, and different than the issues Stevens had. For one... Stevens was much better at getting plays called and executed ATO, Brad was more willing to be flexible with his rotations when something wasn't working, Brad didn't run his bigs into the ground, Brad took responsibility for his mistakes.

Now Brad had issues... the team appeared to have tuned him out, he wasn't always consistent with minutes for young guys, he waited too long to take a TO to stop a run, he didn't appear willing/able to challenge guys who coasted, but as a tactical coach, he was clearly better than what Ime has shown so far.
1000000%. I think Stevens’ tenure had run its course by the end and fully supported him moving on…however, he is light years beyond Udoka as a coach. Like it seems insulting to even compare them at this point.
You mentioned almost all of the big things but I’d also add that Stevens system was based off of what players he had and their talents. Udoka’s system is completely rigid and he doesn’t seem willing to change anything. John Karalis asked him about continually playing 2 Schroeder and Smart together even though they are both poor shooters. His response was basically “well one of them is going to have to shoot better”. That’s an absolutely insane answer and it’s not putting your roster in a position to succeed.
Hes already pretty much run Horford into the ground and there’s nothing to show for it.

This team and it’s roster may not be championship worthy but it’s sure as shit better than 10th place in the East. I honestly can’t even believe that there’s a discussion being framed around if they are underachieving or not. Of fucking course they are!
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,159
I was working for much of the night---sadly, I missed the part of the game where the C's played well---but the box score lists Brown with three turnovers, which for him doesn't seem unusually high. Were they especially egregious? Is the box score wrong?
There must have been at least one that came at a pretty poignant time - can't remember for sure. It's also not always clear who (if anyone) gets credited with a turnover. He got called with an offensive foul at a super critical moment - but that's a different type of mistake, and one could argue it was just the defense making a great play. But, it was a big play at the time (about 2:00 in the game) that gave the Knicks the ball. However, I was more referring to what seemed like some pretty lousy passes. On the plus side, he had a great steal. While JB is a poor off-ball defender, I think he's above average as an on-ball defender.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Edit- to use a basketball reference instead of football. Steph Curry had a stretch last year of a month plus where he shot about 20% worse than his average from 3... did his talent level go down? Or did he just underperform his talent level?
That was a month. We are now at a season and a half of the Boston Celtics playing at .500 or below. At some point, your overall performance is indicative of overall talent.

Also, to make a distinction here, there are tweaks to this roster that may yield better results. But until this team either levels up its top end talent or rounds out the supporting cast, we should expect them to produce at ~ this level. Maybe an Uncut Popovich from this forum can eek out a few more wins by yelling and making all sorts of substitutions but at some point, we have to accept that they are what they are.

Edit: the pushback I am getting is all qualitative and I get it. They feel like they should be better than this. But then you look at their actual production vis-a-vis the other teams around them in the standings and its hard to make an argument that they are underperforming their aggregate talent.
 
Last edited:

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
A team with a +1 ppg differential should not be three games under .500. A team should not blow 4 20 point lead or whatever. I think that’s what people are saying when they say this team is underperforming. The stats suggest a team that should be a few games above rather than below .
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,964
Boston, MA
Jaylen Brown is a talented volume scorer who really has a ton of value. To me, he's a borderline all-star who is a good basketball player. Jaylen Brown is also a terrible distributor, doesn't see the floor at all, has not improved his ballhandling anywhere near to where it should be (I'd say he's a below average ballhandler for a 2-3 guard/forward) and has a very low basketball IQ. To ask him to distribute is asking him to do something he is mostly bad at doing. It's not his fault that this team lacks playmakers and often puts the ball in his hand and ask him to make plays. He's simply not that guy.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Should teams with a ~+1 net rating really be better than .500? I don't know but it doesn't seem to be the case. You can keep going back but the last few seasons, teams with marginally positive net ratings are generally .500 teams. There are exceptions of course but again, I see a team that is right around where they should be in the standings.

48106
48107
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
I was just looking at point differential.

DAL +1.5 (20-18)
TOR +1.1 (18-17)
BOS +1.0 (18-21)
PHI +1.0 (21-16)

I think the C’s stats suggest a team that should probably be 21-18, 22-17. Which would put them 6th/7th Instead of 11th. A team that has lost a ton of games they should have won, and not won many they should have lost.

i think a lot of it was probably bad luck early in the year that is becoming real because it’s inside their heads. But that’s pure speculation.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,951
Isle of Plum
A little over/a little under 500: I'm finding it hard to care much as it seems like arranging deck chairs on groundhog day based on how they look out there. I'm not an Ime basher, still too early (but gets late early in Boston), but do think Brad would have a couple more Ws. That also pure speculation, but I'm not sure it would change my expectations if they did. Would be nice to beat the Knicks on Saturday though.

I wanted Jayson to add some bulk and drive the lane for the extra FTs. Law of unintended consequences is his 3pt when down as his bench went up.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I was just looking at point differential.

DAL +1.5 (20-18)
TOR +1.1 (18-17)
BOS +1.0 (18-21)
PHI +1.0 (21-16)

I think the C’s stats suggest a team that should probably be 21-18, 22-17. Which would put them 6th/7th Instead of 11th. A team that has lost a ton of games they should have won, and not won many they should have lost.

i think a lot of it was probably bad luck early in the year that is becoming real because it’s inside their heads. But that’s pure speculation.
I'd say it's closer to 20-19 instead of 18-21. Is that really underachieving? Also, keep in mind the 76ers were without Embiid for awhile. They are -92 in 11 games without Embiid. They are +127 in 26 games with. Quick math tells me that's around +5 with, and -8 without.

3-8 without Joel, 18-8 with. Totally different team.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Jeff Van Gundy said on the Lowe Post last week - I'm not sure if it was related to the Cs, but it stuck out to me - that if your team is constantly hashing shit out in the media, then the communication behind the scenes is severely lacking (paraphrase). Say what you want about Van Gundy, but that seems right on target to me and highlights Ime's failing as a coach thus far. Too often he's throwing players under the bus in the press, but also players themselves are battling each other in the press (see Al and Jaylen last week). What is going on with the private communication that is leading to these kinds of media flare ups?

I also heard that the Celtics have lost four games in which they led by 19 points - no other team has more than two. If they go 4-0 in those games - not a tall order! - they'd be 22-17 right now and we're probably not fretting about the state of the team. They're 29th in the league in Net Rating in the 4th quarter. It's hard for me to point at the raw talent and say that it makes sense they're a good team in the first three quarters but then second to last in the league when it counts. That to me is about coaching and leadership and none of that is fixable until someone makes themselves accountable - that should start with Ime, it should start with Tatum, it should start with Brown. Leadership is cool when you get the commercials, but it counts most when shit ain't going well and you need to set a precedent for the rest of the team.

I don't think it's the talent on the team that's making them under .500. The talent holds them back from being a championship contender, but they should at least be in the mix for the 4-6 seeds with the players they have on the roster.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,460
That was a month. We are now at a season and a half of the Boston Celtics playing at .500 or below. At some point, your overall performance is indicative of overall talent.

Also, to make a distinction here, there are tweaks to this roster that may yield better results. But until this team either levels up its top end talent or rounds out the supporting cast, we should expect them to produce at ~ this level. Maybe an Uncut Popovich from this forum can eek out a few more wins by yelling and making all sorts of substitutions but at some point, we have to accept that they are what they are.

Edit: the pushback I am getting is all qualitative and I get it. They feel like they should be better than this. But then you look at their actual production vis-a-vis the other teams around them in the standings and its hard to make an argument that they are underperforming their aggregate talent.
No, the pushback you are getting is because you keep defining an obvious term wrong.

THis started with a discussion of whether this team is underperforming and has more TALENT than last year, with additions and subtractions. You keep trying to argue they don't by alternately....
1. pointing to their performance this year... .which isn't talent, it's performance and what we are trying to address is whether that performance is in keeping with the talent.
2. Pointing to last year... which is weird since the whole question is whether the players who WERE NOT ON THE TEAM LAST YEAR have more talent than the ones who were on the team last year and no longer are.

Do you really not understand the difference between results, performance and talent... because all three are different things and you seem to use them all interchangeably. Which is why you get pushback. Nobody is arguing that this team is a contender, they are pointing out that talent and performance are not the same thing, and a team can under (or over) perform their talent due to a variety of factors.

You also don't seem to distinguish between winning 55-60% of your games (which makes you a good team but not a title contender) and winning 45-48% of your games (which makes you a mediocre team), the margins aren't that big in the NBA, and there are differences between those levels of performance.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,159
They're 29th in the league in Net Rating in the 4th quarter. It's hard for me to point at the raw talent and say that it makes sense they're a good team in the first three quarters but then second to last in the league when it counts. That to me is about coaching and leadership and none of that is fixable until someone makes themselves accountable
It's pretty simple - players are gassed in the 4th quarter. Any high school coach on a back to back would be trying to sub some of his starters - but Ime was running them out there to start the 4th, even though they had a large lead that they subsequently squandered.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
No, the pushback you are getting is because you keep defining an obvious term wrong.

THis started with a discussion of whether this team is underperforming and has more TALENT than last year, with additions and subtractions. You keep trying to argue they don't by alternately....
1. pointing to their performance this year... .which isn't talent, it's performance and what we are trying to address is whether that performance is in keeping with the talent.
2. Pointing to last year... which is weird since the whole question is whether the players who WERE NOT ON THE TEAM LAST YEAR have more talent than the ones who were on the team last year and no longer are.

Do you really not understand the difference between results, performance and talent... because all three are different things and you seem to use them all interchangeably. Which is why you get pushback. Nobody is arguing that this team is a contender, they are pointing out that talent and performance are not the same thing, and a team can under (or over) perform their talent due to a variety of factors.

You also don't seem to distinguish between winning 55-60% of your games (which makes you a good team but not a title contender) and winning 45-48% of your games (which makes you a mediocre team), the margins aren't that big in the NBA, and there are differences between those levels of performance.
You and others may well be correct that Stevens and Udoka are not good enough coaches to get this roster to play above .500 (btw, this doesn't equate the two) . The problem is nobody can show where this underperformance is showing up.

We can agree to move on as we aren't going to convince one another.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I think they are both underperforming their talent AND don't have true contender talent.

This team when the stars were healthy (except Kemba who was never going to be healthy) played at a .550 or so level last year, this year they are worse.

Looking at roster:

Out- Tristan Thompson, Evan Fournier (16 games), Kemba Walker, Carsen Edwards. (If we count mid-season losses add Theis and Teague)
In- Al Horford, Dennis Schroder, Josh Richardson, Enes, Juancho

To me, that's a talent upgrade. Horford is better than Thompson, Schroder is better than Kemba probably, Janch and Carson don't play, Fournier is maybe better than Richardson but we also only had him for 16 games. Enes is a body.

I think on talent this should be a team that wins 55-60% of their games last year that puts you in the 4-6 seed range, this year the 5/6 slot. We're performing well behind that number, and we haven't been better when our stars are healthy (actually worse).

So yeah, this isn't a title contender, but it also on talent should be better. Yes they don't have a third star, but the also go 8 deep on guys who were playoff starters in the last few years. The Celtics should be fighting for the 4 seed not the last play-in spot on talent.
I agree with everything here.

I think it's a pretty healthy talent upgrade over last season, especially if we're looking at the first halves of both seasons.

Richardson is basically taking Semi Ojeleyes spot. They tried to upgrade that spot last year with Fournier, but between injuries and covid, Fournier and Jaylen ended up only playing 8 games together. Fournier basically ended up taking Jaylens spot. If the Celtics were playing halfway decent, I'd think they could've easily added another Fournier level player down the stretch. Now I'd guess they're much more likely to go into tax ducking mode.

Having Grant Williams playing much better than last year, while not a talent upgrade, should've helped in the W/L column as well.

Also agree with what you said in later posts, I think they've taken a sizable downgrade in coaching.

In unrelated stuff, can some Celtics reporter find out what the team did to aggravate Fournier? He hasn't scored more than 26 against any other team in the league and he's hit Boston with 32, 32 and 41???
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I don't think it's the talent on the team that's making them under .500. The talent holds them back from being a championship contender, but they should at least be in the mix for the 4-6 seeds with the players they have on the roster.
This paragraph says it all. Perfectly stated.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,154
San Francisco
You and others may well be correct that Stevens and Udoka are not good enough coaches to get this roster to play above .500 (btw, this doesn't equate the two) . The problem is nobody can show where this underperformance is showing up.

We can agree to move on as we aren't going to convince one another.
Tatum shooting well below his career averages and potential? The team shooting, what, 34% on wide open 3s, with guys like Horford and Smart below what they have been the past few years? Is that not enough for you? Tatum alone accounts for a lot of the regression from last year.

This is going in circles indeed, I am not sure I get your point.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
you were on Team Blow-It-Up a few weeks back, anything change your mind?
I was on TBIU last year, all summer and a few weeks ago prior to my half tongue-in-cheek call for a winning streak as it WAS possible to get shit together this month. I’m still on TBIU on everyone but Tatum and I still believe that the redundancy of JT and JB is part of what is holding this team back from reaching their potential.

That’s what I’d like to see……having said that, each year there are 1-2 teams who underachieve in the 1H of the season only to go on a run to overachieve in the 2H. We are absolutely 100% on the short list of teams to do what Atlanta and the Knicks did last year with the talent on this roster. When ATL was 14-20 was there a thread on the John Drew’s Coke Mirror board about them winning 27 of their final 38 games? Or the Knicks winning 30 of their last 46? Now I don’t expect this team to do this……but neither did the Hawks or Knicks fans and this team certainly is top heavy enough to do so if they can figure it out.
 
Last edited:

Swedgin

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2013
701
This season is Exhibit A for the importance of point guard play/play making. When the Jays experienced success they were paired with a dynamic lead guard (IT/Kyrie/Scary Terry/healthy Kemba), which allowed Tatum to function as a secondary play maker and Jaylen to play off the ball. Two way wings remain the most valuable commodity in the league, but unless they are also elite playmakers (Lebron), they need competent PG play or an playmaking big to have an great offense. Tatum and Brown are not redundant. The roster is just short a PG.

Schroder is subpar play maker. He is a scorer/sixth man. It is not coincidence that his best season came playing next to Chris Paul.

Marcus does a lot of things well, but he is not a creator and there is no reason to think he can become one.

Marcus Smart is having a nice season. He's a huge contributor on defense and I like some of what he's done in terms of ball movement. I think he needs to be the full time PG for the remainder of the season to see if he's a solution long-term. Right now, he's not really gotten that chance. He's a solid contributor and would make an ideal 6th man on many teams, but in the current roster, he's at worst the fourth-best player on the team. The contract is movable, and I could see Smart helping a team with championship hopes but that's the rub - he's not really good enough for a bad team to give up premium picks for,. He's most appealing to teams buying for win now and on those teams, he's probably a 6th man. He is a good NBA player... like a rich man's Josh Richardson.
The fit for Marcus is a youngish team that is either on the verge of breaking through (or delusional about breaking through) or under achieving, that needs toughness and defense. Atlanta seems like a fit. Reddish, Cooper and salary filler? The Kings are apparently under a mandate to make the play-in game, maybe Ranadive is desperate/delusional enough to offer up Halliburton. I am sure smarter folks can think of other destinations.
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,951
Isle of Plum
The fit for Marcus is a youngish team that is either on the verge of breaking through (or delusional about breaking through) or under achieving, that needs toughness
I am somewhat more skeptical of Marcus as primary PG (or it would be working better by now), but other than that I’m largely in agreement here. That said, I’m also struck by how much the boldest sounds like the Cs.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,997
I was on TBIU last year, all summer and a few weeks ago prior to my half tongue-in-cheek call for a winning streak as it WAS possible to get shit together this month. I’m still on TBIU on everyone but Tatum and I still believe that the redundancy of JT and JB is part of what is holding this team back from reaching their potential.

That’s what I’d like to see……having said that, each year there are 1-2 teams who underachieve in the 1H of the season only to go on a run to overachieve in the 2H. We are absolutely 100% on the short list of teams to do what Atlanta and the Knicks did last year with the talent on this roster. When ATL was 14-20 was there a thread on the John Drew’s Coke Mirror board about them winning 27 of their final 38 games? Or the Knicks winning 30 of their last 46? Now I don’t expect this team to do this……but neither did the Hawks or Knicks fans and this team certainly is too heavy enough to do so if they can figure it out.
It's still insane that the Hawks started 14-20 and probably make the Finals if Trae doesn't get hurt.

I guess if you told me in May that the Celtics had had a Hawks/Knicks type run to end the season, I wouldn't be totally shocked. That said, they need to have a clear invalidation point for that thesis prior to the trade deadline, since
a) they're further into the season than the Hawks & Knicks were
b) not getting a high draft pick in a lost year would be brutal

If you get a high pick, suddenly you have a real chance to flip Jaylen for one more complementary player, and the pick+ for another high-tier guy, which might be what they need to do to build around Tatum.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Sure the Celtics are the type of underachieving team that could turn it on in the second half…but they were also that type of team last year…..and didn’t. So it’s hard to see things suddenly changing without some kind of impetus.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Staggering stats in this barstool piece. The myth of the Celtics having a good defense should be put to rest.

On the season, the Celts have the 23rd ranked second half defense, coming in with a rating of 110.9. How drastic of a dropoff is that? Well in the first half of games they have the 6th best defense at 105.3

https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/3400931/there-might-not-be-a-more-pathetic-team-in-the-nba-right-now-than-the-boston-celtics?fbclid=IwAR2Fcc1M8lpSyiD258QKCgYyeyXZlkEg8BKpkOnogHJ3EPU7-FSUzNff1CY
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
5,871
Sure the Celtics are the type of underachieving team that could turn it on in the second half…but they were also that type of team last year…..and didn’t. So it’s hard to see things suddenly changing without some kind of impetus.
First, last year's team had serious issues with depth that this year's team doesn't. The idea that the talent from last year is equivalent to this year's talent is wrong. Kemba, TT, Pritchard, and Grant Williams were 4-5-6 in total minutes last year. This year you have Schroder-Horford-Rob Williams-Richardson-Grant Williams. Schroder is about the same or even a little better than Kemba (who has been out of the rotation at times in New York), Horford is an upgrade from TT (who is barely in the rotation in Sacramento), Richardson is more useful than PP, and Grant Williams is an upgrade on last year's version of Grant Williams.

As I see it, there are three main issues: (1) is just performance. Tatum, Horford and Smart all posting worst or near-worst career seasons from three-point-land is not just a fit issue. There have been problems with finding each other open shots, but the bottom line is that our star is not hitting shots he hit last year. As @slamminsammya pointed out upthread, they've been unbelievably bad on wide-open threes. I haven't checked, but if I had to guess, Tatum, Horford, and Smart have all been major culprits here. I hope all three of those players find their stroke on open shots. If they don't, nothing will help.

(2) is fit, and it's a real one. As others have documented, neither Tatum nor Brown nor Schroder nor Smart is a good enough playmaker to complement the others strengths. Tatum has been a very good isolation scorer in the past, though he's been miserable this year, Brown is a great slasher and great scorer, but a turnover machine when asked to be a lead ballhandler, Schroder is a good slasher and sixth man but mediocre shooter and passer, and Smart is a bad shooter and average passer for his position. The team is 23rd in assists, 15th in turnovers, and 23rd on three pointers. Easy buckets have been extremely hard to come by. Brown is one of the only guys who can get you one, but he gives back so much when he's lead ballhandler that you don't want him with the ball in his hands.

The third issue is talent. If Tatum were playing like himself, this team would be in Cavaliers territory: 22-17 or thereabouts. That team would be more fun to watch, but it still wouldn't be a contender. The Celtics either need Tatum to take a leap or they need more talent to contend. Chris Paul, for example, would make the offense elite. Even Lonzo would have been a huge help.

Obviously all three of these issues interlock and interact, to a degree. But talent is the biggest issue even if (1) they were playing more to their talent level and (2) the team had better fits (Lonzo instead of Smart or Schroder, for example).

The question is if PBS can draw a third star who complements Tatum and Brown without having to give either of them up. Look at the heat: getting Kyle Lowry without really giving anything up has made a huge difference for their offense. Or Phoenix adding Chris Paul while keeping Ayton, Bridges and Booker.

I see a few targets: Lillard and Beal are the best options possibilities: volume shooters struggling from 3-pt land this year. I think if you have to send Brown back for either of them, though, it's pretty much a marginal move. The fit would be better, but the overall talent level still might not be good enough. Brogdon is another -- I think he moves them in the right direction, but maybe isn't enough to make this an elite team. He probably doesn't command Jaylen Brown as a return, on the other hand. De'Aaron Fox also interests me. Fox replicates some of the Celtics issues: he's had good seasons as a passer, but he's another miserable shooter. His salary is also massive, so I think he's a no-go.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Speaking of the Heat, they’ve really been helped by Max Strus. Why can’t the C’s get guys like that…ugh. It’s frustrating to see a guy develop elsewhere considering all the back of the roster dreck the C’s have had in the past few years.

I certainly agree that adding a Lowry, Paul, Beal, or Lillard would help the C’s (and pretty much any team)….but what trade chits do the C’s have to pull off such a deal? We’ve only got our own first round picks going forward as far as I can tell.

Something like Lillard for Horford, Pritchard, Hernangomez, Fernando and multiple firsts works in the trade machine but do the Blazers make a deal like that?Does it even turn the Celtics into a real contender? And is it worth going deep into paying the tax for a guy who is in his 30’s?

After trading all the excess picks accumulated (several to dump mistake contracts) and a bunch of mediocre drafts, the cupboard seems pretty bare. Having a down year and winning the lottery would help!
 
Last edited:

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Tatum shooting well below his career averages and potential? The team shooting, what, 34% on wide open 3s, with guys like Horford and Smart below what they have been the past few years? Is that not enough for you? Tatum alone accounts for a lot of the regression from last year.

This is going in circles indeed, I am not sure I get your point.
First, we agree that the Cs ceiling is defined by Tatum's performance and his down season is clearly driving the team's results.

As for Horford and Smart, neither is a good shooter and the former is nearing the end of his career while the latter is essentially extreme offensive variance incarnate. If the argument is that coaching is holding these guys back from making wide open looks, it seems a stretch but its possible. As has been pointed out upthread, Smart's 2P and FT numbers are relatively good for him which makes his terrible 3P shooting even more confusing.

Once again, I welcome any evidence that the entirety of this roster is meaningfully underperforming. None of the data that correlates to winning suggests that they should be significantly better than .500. People keep saying they should be 4-6 seed. However the team's actual output isn't consistent with that view and hasn't been for a long time.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
8,017
Imaginationland
I'm a big fan of Marcus and his style of play, but he's gotta be just about the worst fit imaginable offensively with the Jays. His 3P shooting is what it is - .297 this year, .331 over his last 3 years, .318 for his career. His high water mark (.364 in 2019) should be the absolute floor of a guard starting alongside two ball dominant wing scorers, not the absolute ceiling. Even in games when he shoots well he's a liability because his defenders still cheat off him, clogging the lane for Tatum/Brown. This dynamic worked somewhat when he could come off the bench and was a 1st team all-NBA level defender (and I don't think it's a coincidence that his best shooting season occurred in the year that his usage rate was the lowest of his career), but as a starter, as the 3rd or 4th highest scorer on the roster, it's a disaster.

Smart should be in every trade conversation once he's eligible to be moved. Horford less so, for three reasons: His value has to be much lower, we're not as deep at the 4/5 spot (especially given TL's fragility), and given his track record there's a reasonable chance that he improves (.368 from 3 last year, .357 over the previous 3 years, .359 since he became a real 3 point shooter). Smart is indeed the heart and soul of the team and it sucks to move the guy who has been here for 8 years (and clearly likes being here), but the heart and soul of a team that's thoroughly underachieved for nearly 4 years now just can't be unmovable.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
The fit for Marcus is a youngish team that is either on the verge of breaking through (or delusional about breaking through) or under achieving, that needs toughness and defense. Atlanta seems like a fit. Reddish, Cooper and salary filler? The Kings are apparently under a mandate to make the play-in game, maybe Ranadive is desperate/delusional enough to offer up Halliburton. I am sure smarter folks can think of other destinations.
The fit for Marcus is a contender and that’s it. Young teams don’t mortgage their future for a sixth man. Now every contender can use Dray Green’s MiniMe, but have a look at their rosters and see what they have to offer. It’s basically the same low first you’d get for Schröder. Maybe two of them.
 

Auger34

used to be tbb
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,275
First, we agree that the Cs ceiling is defined by Tatum's performance and his down season is clearly driving the team's results.

As for Horford and Smart, neither is a good shooter and the former is nearing the end of his career while the latter is essentially extreme offensive variance incarnate. If the argument is that coaching is holding these guys back from making wide open looks, it seems a stretch but its possible. As has been pointed out upthread, Smart's 2P and FT numbers are relatively good for him which makes his terrible 3P shooting even more confusing.

Once again, I welcome any evidence that the entirety of this roster is meaningfully underperforming. None of the data that correlates to winning suggests that they should be significantly better than .500. People keep saying they should be 4-6 seed. However the team's actual output isn't consistent with that view and hasn't been for a long time.
What would you consider evidence? Because all of your posts seem to suggest the only evidence you’ll consider is record (which obviously no one will be able to provide).
That’s fine but it’s disingenuous to keep repeating that as if your opinion can be changed when it clearly can’t
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
People keep claiming that this roster is underperforming its talent and that the coaching/scheme is the driver. It may well be but wide open or even poor shooting percentages don't tell me its Udoka's fault, especially when its well documented that shooting is down league-wide and other much better shooters than the Cs motley rotation are also struggling.

What in the offensive or defensive numbers tells people this team should be that much better? I simply don't see it. I thought they would be. But they aren't.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It's because they'd be 22-17 if they didn't blow their 4 20 (or 19+) point leads.

Of course, blowing that many leads is also indictive of a talent flaw.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,112
Santa Monica
@Cellar-Door did a nice job of defining TALENT and PERFORMANCE above.

This team started out the season with the TALENT to be a 4-6 EC team (according to Vegas)

The team has PERFORMED very poorly in Q4, when most NBA games are decided, and their record reflects that.

Many posters noticed some problems the first week, the first month, the first 25 games but that was squashed with SSS. There isn't a "magic bullet advanced metric # that proves its IME's fault", it's a confluence of problems.

Simply put, a lot of the blame for the bad PERFORMANCE so far has to go to
1. IME's rotations/MPG allocation/scheme
2. Roster construction
3. Tatum's poor shooting
4. Team 3pt%

There is plenty of evidence to all these issues from bad pairing #s, rotation pairings, MPG going to less efficient players, Asst/TO, 3pt%, FG%, etc etc etc. I mean we can all play with the adv metrics to make them say what we want, it's done on a regular basis around here. Sometimes the eye test with some simple metrics will tell you enough.

I liked the IME hiring, but he is pressing, which is leading to more bad decisions. A lot of these players have won many big playoff games and IME has never been a Head Coach before, so maybe it's my bias to assign some blame to the rookie HC.

Also, the team's TALENT level isn't static, it's fluid, and should be adjusted as this continues.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
@Cellar-Door did a nice job of defining TALENT and PERFORMANCE above.

This team started out the season with the TALENT to be a 4-6 EC team (according to Vegas)

The team has PERFORMED very poorly in Q4, when most NBA games are decided, and their record reflects that.

Many posters noticed some problems the first week, the first month, the first 25 games but that was squashed with SSS. There isn't a "magic bullet advanced metric # that proves its IME's fault", it's a confluence of problems.

Simply put, a lot of the blame for the bad PERFORMANCE so far has to go to
1. IME's rotations/MPG allocation/scheme
2. Roster construction
3. Tatum's poor shooting
4. Team 3pt%

There is plenty of evidence to all these issues from bad pairing #s, rotation pairings, MPG going to less efficient players, Asst/TO, 3pt%, FG%, etc etc etc. I mean we can all play with the adv metrics to make them say what we want, it's done on a regular basis around here. Sometimes the eye test with some simple metrics will tell you enough.

I liked the IME hiring, but he is pressing, which is leading to more bad decisions. A lot of these players have won many big playoff games and IME has never been a Head Coach before, so maybe it's my bias to assign some blame to the rookie HC.

Also, the team's TALENT level isn't static, it's fluid, and should be adjusted as this continues.
Yeah, it really isn’t that complicated. We can blame Covid games lost, we can blame Tatum’s well below norm eFG% in late game “Clutch” situations, we can blame Ime’s lineups/system, etc. it’s likely a whole bunch of each…….but how hard can it be to recognize that a team that analytics, betting markets, and prognosticators had in the 4-6 seed range is underperforming when they sit as the 11?
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,476
Melrose, MA
People keep claiming that this roster is underperforming its talent and that the coaching/scheme is the driver. It may well be but wide open or even poor shooting percentages don't tell me its Udoka's fault, especially when its well documented that shooting is down league-wide and other much better shooters than the Cs motley rotation are also struggling.

What in the offensive or defensive numbers tells people this team should be that much better? I simply don't see it. I thought they would be. But they aren't.
What do you mean by "that much better?"

I think they should and would be better (I'm not saying "much better") except for:

1. They have a strange propensity to blow big leads.
2. They play markedly worse late in close games.

I think if this team didn't shit all over itself in late games, they could be 21-18 instead of the reverse.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
4,546
I'm a big fan of Marcus and his style of play, but he's gotta be just about the worst fit imaginable offensively with the Jays. His 3P shooting is what it is - .297 this year, .331 over his last 3 years, .318 for his career. His high water mark (.364 in 2019) should be the absolute floor of a guard starting alongside two ball dominant wing scorers, not the absolute ceiling. Even in games when he shoots well he's a liability because his defenders still cheat off him, clogging the lane for Tatum/Brown. This dynamic worked somewhat when he could come off the bench and was a 1st team all-NBA level defender (and I don't think it's a coincidence that his best shooting season occurred in the year that his usage rate was the lowest of his career), but as a starter, as the 3rd or 4th highest scorer on the roster, it's a disaster.

Smart should be in every trade conversation once he's eligible to be moved. Horford less so, for three reasons: His value has to be much lower, we're not as deep at the 4/5 spot (especially given TL's fragility), and given his track record there's a reasonable chance that he improves (.368 from 3 last year, .357 over the previous 3 years, .359 since he became a real 3 point shooter). Smart is indeed the heart and soul of the team and it sucks to move the guy who has been here for 8 years (and clearly likes being here), but the heart and soul of a team that's thoroughly underachieved for nearly 4 years now just can't be unmovable.
I keep seeing people saying this, and I couldn't disagree more. I think he's a fantastic fit with the Jays(I should note I'm in the top 1% of Smart fanboys)

On offense

good ballhandler
good passer
good screener
moves the ball quickly
doesn't shoot a lot
hit his free throws
opportunistic rebounder

On defense

elite defender
guards 1-4
if playing with a small PG, he'll be the guy scramming him out of bad matchups, so the Jays don't have to
if playing with a PG that doesn't need help, he'll take the toughest wing matchup, so the Jays don't have to
puts pressure on offense by being a threat to steal the ball at all times

Of course we'd like him to also be a good outside shooter. But if he were, you wouldn't have him as your 3rd best guy making less than 20M per year. He'd be making the max because he'd be an all star.

If they trade Smart for more shooting, the Celtics will quickly be looking to replace everything else he does.

Seems to me it would be much easier to just add a shooter, even a one dimensional one, rather than have Smart/Brown/Tatum playing in so many lineups where the other two guys also aren't good outside shooters.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
I hate to say it because it wasn't practical to keep him but Fournier, warts and all, was a good fit. Someone like that might do wonders for the offense.