I wouldn't call any of those good contests, IMO. Weren't as bad as I was remembering, but Kornet was a 1/2 step slow on all those
- Wade hit over Kornet good contest
- Wade hit over Kornet good contest
- Okoro hit over Kornet contested
I wouldn't call any of those good contests, IMO. Weren't as bad as I was remembering, but Kornet was a 1/2 step slow on all those
- Wade hit over Kornet good contest
- Wade hit over Kornet good contest
- Okoro hit over Kornet contested
Yep, I was excited to see it get tight/late with ~4 mins leftOf course they are, that’s what teams do.
I could care less about W/Ls, rotations, Dean Wade, or NBA RefsLet see if they can execute when it gets tight
good practice for the playoffs
Of course teams can minimize mental lapses on defense - like switching versus not switching, losing guys in transition, simply ball-watching and losing guys. I mean if they couldn't, would Exasperated Guy have anything to talk about?The teams will likely look at the tape to clean these things up but it feels like some fans have an expectation that you can eliminate these lapses from an NBA game. If that's the case its unrealistic.
Even the best defenders get beat a bit less than half the time. My guess is that if they played again tomorrow DWade 2.0 would not be as comfortable against the Cs.
X was inactive. Probably because they thought they'd play 3 centers and that was enough. https://www.nba.com/game/0022300886/box-scoreTillman wasn't on the injury report, but I saw him on the bench in non-Cs gear (street clothes, though they looked like warmups) and the boxscore doesn't list him at all, even as a DNP. For some reason, he seems not to have been active last night. Not sure why that would be?
I posted this in the game thread but...It was weird they didn't play Tillman: Horford+Kornet have gotten roasted all season long. I think that probably tells you CJM was treating this as not a must-win, and was sticking to working with that lineup for practice/reps reasons.
Nailed it.Yep, I was excited to see it get tight/late with ~4 mins left
I could care less about W/Ls, rotations, Dean Wade, or NBA Refs
BUT didn't love the execution from Tatum at the end
The Nuggets weren’t playing bad as Phoenix built that lead. Grayson Allen hit 8 three’s and 4 within about a 3-4 min stretch of game time at end of 2Q and start of 3Q. They never wavered from their stuff and weathered the storm. This did not resemble the Warriors giveaway game on final game of their road trip at all.Not quite right - Denver was down 22, forced OT, then was promptly blown out in the OT.
I think the overall point stands though - it’s very much the dog days of the regular season. Tomorrow’s Finals preview though just got that much more interesting with both teams coming off losses.
Bingo. Until they win it all, it's a fun team for NBA fans to shit on. They're so good but they have that one clear hole (haven't won the big one)...until they hoist the trophy they're going to keep catching strays.Where I run into trouble is that NBA Twitter loves to hate the Celtics. They really need to finish the job this year to shut a lot of people up.
Yes, and Mazulla took forever to adjust. Kornet was actually really effective early in the game but in the second half the Cavs made adjustments- and Mazulla was painfully slow in responding. I suppose some of Mazulla’s odd decisions may have been more about getting guys rest (like Jaylen missing most of the 4th quarter) but not switching out Kornet for Tillman cannot be explained so easily. And when the game began to spiral out of control in the 4th, Mazulla also fell back to his old habit of refusing to call a time out -with predictable results.Kornet had a really rough stretch in that 4th. Dean Wade went nuts, but he also got good looks whenever Kornet got switched onto him
I’ll take a swing at this one….I suppose some of Mazulla’s odd decisions may have been more about getting guys rest (like Jaylen missing most of the 4th quarter) but not switching out Kornet for Tillman cannot be explained so easily.
Tillman wasn't active for the game. (Not listed among the DNPs)Yes, and Mazulla took forever to adjust. Kornet was actually really effective early in the game but in the second half the Cavs made adjustments- and Mazulla was painfully slow in responding. I suppose some of Mazulla’s odd decisions may have been more about getting guys rest (like Jaylen missing most of the 4th quarter)
but not switching out Kornet for Tillman cannot be explained so easily.
The Celtics' 9th most used lineup (just 45 minutes FWIW) includes both: Kornet/Horford/Tatum/Holiday/Pritchard. It's the only one of their 10 most used lineups to have a negative net rating, and by a lot at -19.9/100.I posted this in the game thread but...
Mazzulla was definitely experimenting with a few line-ups. Last night proved what we all already kind of thought and I really hope that the Horford+Kornet duo is never used again.
Kornet+Horford just doesn't work great.The Celtics' 9th most used lineup (just 45 minutes FWIW) includes both: Kornet/Horford/Tatum/Holiday/Pritchard. It's the only one of their 10 most used lineups to have a negative net rating, and by a lot at -19.9/100.
Also no reason to go double big against Cleveland who was playing Wade at the 4 for most of the 4thKornet+Horford just doesn't work great.
I'm not at all concerned that this reflects how Joe will coach in the playoffs, since we have too much evidence otherwise.
Yup, but I just don't have the energy to debate March 5th coaching decisions in a game the team clearly wasn't optimizing for. Watch the film and move on.Also no reason to go double big against Cleveland who was playing Wade at the 4 for most of the 4th
There are likely (ie definitely) people who look at better stats for this than I do, but per nba.com here are the Celtics Off-Ratings (& rankings) in "clutch" situations the last 3 years:The biggest concern for me last night was the reversion to Old Celtics iso ball to “bleed the clock out.” I don’t know that we’ve seen enough close games late for me to fully believe they won’t revert back to it when it matters. It sounds weird, but I simultaneously believe this team is different, but also won’t believe it’s different until I see it when it matters. Let’s get this regular season over with. Healthy. Please.
Oh, interesting. Hadn’t realized that. That makes me feel better about his decision not too play him..lolTillman wasn't active for the game. (Not listed among the DNPs)
Cavaliers 105-104 Celtics (Mar 5, 2024) Box Score - ESPN
There were a couple possessions in the 4th quarter where they took a shot off of one ball screen. But, most of the time they had good looks and they did not fall.The biggest concern for me last night was the reversion to Old Celtics iso ball to “bleed the clock out.” I don’t know that we’ve seen enough close games late for me to fully believe they won’t revert back to it when it matters. It sounds weird, but I simultaneously believe this team is different, but also won’t believe it’s different until I see it when it matters. Let’s get this regular season over with. Healthy. Please.
This is my concern, dude...I am curious about those sounding the warning signs about this team - are you seeing the things that concern you in all the games or just the losses? Is it possible that maybe correlation= causation for you?
Every team in every sport has worse numbers for good things in games they lose.Aside from the coach reverting to innocent bystander, the 3 numbers in losses are worst in the league: 32% (40% in wins). Those are patterns we've seen for a while.
The xkcd sports comic is undefeated.Isn't 11 of *anything* in the NBA too small a sample size to draw any legitimate conclusions?
Every team in every sport has worse numbers for good things in games they lose.
Indeed. And I know that the the FG% goes way down on these shots, to the point where if the Celtics were 4-11 in these situations, they might actually be above average.Isn't 11 of *anything* in the NBA too small a sample size to draw any legitimate conclusions?
Every team in every sport has worse numbers for good things in games they lose.
He did post 3 seasons of Tatum's FG% & NBA rank in those clutch situationsIsn't 11 of *anything* in the NBA too small a sample size to draw any legitimate conclusions?
Every team in every sport has worse numbers for good things in games they lose.
They are great until they (the JAYs) decide to go ISO and abandon Mazzulla-ball (hunt for a great shot)The team went into last nights game with a +23 net rating in crunch time.
This is exactly right.Completely aside from the issue for a moment, 1-11 on those sort of shots when the Celtics only have 13 total losses is insane.
Sure. Talk away.He did post 3 seasons of Tatum's FG% & NBA rank in those clutch situations
or should we just not talk about such things?
Do you want Tatum, as he did, to shoot with 2 seconds left?Last-shot offense is very different from other times in the game, because the opponent can advance the ball on a timeout if you leave time left.
Trying to analyze it in the same way as the rest of the game leads inevitably to flawed conclusions. As @HomeRunBaker loves to point out, the tagline of this forum used to reflect the eternally recurring nature of this debate.
I’ll take that situation 10 out of 10. Down 1, last possession, ball in our best player’s hand.Celtics won’t admit it, but I think they were playing for the win, or the loss. I don’t think they had any interest in prolonging the game or going to OT.
One loss isn't the end of the world but I don't feel confident with Tatum late and close. It's too slow and too hero ball.Nineteen.
Jayson Tatum dribbled the ball 19 times before hoisting the final shot in Cleveland on Tuesday night, a back-rim miss on a contested fadeaway as the Celtics fumbled away a 22-point fourth-quarter lead and watched their 11-game winning streak end against the undermanned Cavaliers.
The Celtics had 19.1 seconds to generate a quality look, chase a second-chance opportunity, and/or foul to extend the game. Instead, Tatum dribbled the ball 19 times while Joe Mazzulla’s overdue request for a timeout went unnoticed, and the Celtics suffered a loss for the first time in over a month.
I know you’re being glib here but Forsberg isn’t a hot take artist and he’s writing a review of the game, what do you expect him to say there?The Celtics: Do They Have A Tatum Problem?
Iso is nearly always the preferred option of coaches bc you get to control the clock. Tatum did try to go a couple seconds sooner but was defended/blocked by Garland so in an ideal situation we’d have a chance at a follow tip without leaving any time on the clock for Cleveland to inbound from halfcourt.I don't understand why they don't run PnR action with Porzingis with the game on the line, since it's, you know, the most efficient play in the NBA this season (KP in the post). But I'm quite sure— with all the investment into the coaching braintrust this season— that there is indeed some reason they're not running this close and late. Is it that the defense tends to collapse on KP... leading to open 3s... which is a great outcome generally in a basketball game, but less so when you're only down one point?
tie game/end of the Quarter/half... of course, you want the last shot & ISO is fine there.Iso is nearly always the preferred option of coaches bc you get to control the clock. Tatum did try to go a couple seconds sooner but was defended/blocked by Garland so in an ideal situation we’d have a chance at a follow tip without leaving any time on the clock for Cleveland to inbound from halfcourt.
Yeah, I don't really get this. In a typical end-of-half scenario, taking a shot with time on the clock could result in a scenario where you miss + give up an opponent's basket and grade out at -2 or -3. But in the Celtics situation last night, anything between 0 and -3 results in the same outcome: they lose the game, so the scenario above doesn't matter. You need to score more than manage the clock. If the shot goes up with 2 seconds left, I have to think the likelihood of an offensive rebound and put back is nearly as high as the likelihood of scoring + opponent hitting a buzzer beater.Iso is nearly always the preferred option of coaches bc you get to control the clock. Tatum did try to go a couple seconds sooner but was defended/blocked by Garland so in an ideal situation we’d have a chance at a follow tip without leaving any time on the clock for Cleveland to inbound from halfcourt.
Forsberg is generating content to get the people hot about a road game in March at the end of an eleven game winning streak. Please point out - and I know you will be amongst the first - the next time Tatum loses a game dribbling too much.I know you’re being glib here but Forsberg isn’t a hot take artist and he’s writing a review of the game, what do you expect him to say there?
Maybe add an asterisk that the ref didn’t call a blocking foul on Garland but otherwise he’s just relaying what happened
I guess I am saying choose your battles and this isn’t something to battle about
Quit it with the condescending bullshit. I could have gone way more towards what you did with my post but I chose not to.Forsberg is generating content to get the people hot about a road game in March at the end of an eleven game winning streak. Please point out - and I know you will be amongst the first - the next time Tatum loses a game dribbling too much.
Just because content is in a Xitter post does not make it official or anything less than a hot take. Frankly, some of the Xitter posts folks share here say more about how they get their post content than the actual topic itself. I can almost hear Simmons voice dictating some of these "this will come back to haunt the Celtics" posts here.
You responded to my stand alone post by questioning it - I didn't direct it to you or respond to you so don't tell me you are taking it easy on me. Go as hard at me as you feel is necessary here - I am not afraid.Quit it with the condescending bullshit. I could have gone way more towards what you did with my post but I chose not to.
This is all a word salad to just not answer the question that I asked. As I said, it’s a game review. He reviewed the game and commented on what Tatum did. It’s not a war against Tatum or his game or whatever you choose to believe any time anyone says word one bad about the Celtics or (especially) Mazzulla.
The team isn’t infallible no matter what you or the data you select believe (actually I guess I can be condescending like you!).
BTW, I completely agree with @RorschachsMask post. It’s not something predictive and it’s not something I particularly care about. I just don’t want to bury any reporter who reported on the actual game.
I also think Simmons is a clown.,
The semi-serious answer to a rhetorical question: It'd be best for the team to lose in a variety of different ways, to a variety of different teams, to avoid a pattern. However the Celtics are excellent, so nearly all of their losses are to teams that are at least decent (currently 22-1 to teams below .500), and nearly all of their losses are close (currently 28-4 in games decided by 10+ points). I don't have a problem at all with this, the most important thing is that the losses remain relatively uncommon.What is the perfect Celtics loss?
- A close loss to a playoff team?
- A not-so-close loss to a playoff team?
- A blowout loss to a playoff team?
- A close loss to a non-playoff team?
- A not-so-close loss to a non-playoff team?
- A blowout loss to a non-playoff team?
It's a sincere question to any poster or media member who's coming away from last night with questions about this team going forward. Teams are going to lose games in an 82 game season. They're going to lose in the playoffs, too. Would you feel better if it was any of the other five options instead of the first? Would we rather see them lose by 15 to Cleveland than be a single shot out of it? Or trail most of the game instead of losing the lead? They're not going to be perfect, so what is the acceptable tolerance for imperfection?