2022-2023 General Celtics thread

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,607
Saint Paul, MN
That list is a joke. There are three guys they have ranked in front of Tatum that clearly don't deserve it.
I am not sure I see the argument for three. Giannis, Jokic, and Steph are playing lights out and I don't think there is much of an argument that Tatum belongs ahead of them. Durant, Doncic, and Tatum is where things get dicey
 

kfoss99

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2009
1,154
That list is a joke. There are three guys they have ranked in front of Tatum that clearly don't deserve it.
I'm okay with that. What didn't make sense to me was Gobert at #34. I'm assuming all players are paid the same and all teams have to re-draft their rosters. Other than the T-Wolves, who would pick Gobert at the start of the 2nd round? He clearly has shown he can't be the second best player on a roster and can't be played in the playoffs. He's the rich man's Enes Kanter Freedom.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
19,850
Santa Monica
And it’s not like these guys are any better than Tatum offensively. Maybe Doncic is marginally better, but the defensive difference is fucking seismic.
The NBA National Media dinging Tatum is now driven by his Finals (& Playoff) turnover fest last season. Most NBA media don't see the small upgrades/jumps JT takes every 3 months. They barely take into account Tatum's fractured wrist, his DEFENSE, & his overall winning.

Tatum has led 3 separate Celtic teams to the ECF + 1 Final.
2018 - Kyrie/Gordon MIA
2020 - Injured hampered Kemba/Gordon
2022 Finals - JAYs driven team

He has won a lot by 24. The microscope of all those playoff games (74 games/5 seasons) ironically probably hurts his national image. As opposed to Luka (28/4) or Joker (48/7), who don't last as long in the playoffs, where the defense is dug in/ better.

When Tatum eventually turns into a 40% 3pt shooter, it will have a knock-on effect (PPG + more space to drive) which will make him the #1 NBA player. Giannis can't match his shooting or perimeter defense.

PBS also deserves some credit for surrounding Tatum (& Brown) with complimentary players like Smart/White/Brogdon for ball handling + TL/Grant/Horford for defense. But Tatum's ON/OFF is still an outlier with the rest of his BOS starters because he has such a massive effect on the court with bench players. It highlights his individual greatness.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,321
Somewhere
I am not sure I see the argument for three. Giannis, Jokic, and Steph
I basically agree with this but it's worth mentioning that the gaps from 1-6 are about as small as they've ever been.

Right now it looks like Giannis-Jokic are 1-2 in some order.
Then you have Tatum-Curry-Durant-Doncic at 3-6. You can rank them however and I wouldn't complain.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,782
I am not sure I see the argument for three. Giannis, Jokic, and Steph are playing lights out and I don't think there is much of an argument that Tatum belongs ahead of them. Durant, Doncic, and Tatum is where things get dicey
Giannis and Steph are hard to unseat. Wrt Jokic.....I just don't buy his defense. I know that he grades out well, but playoff basketball may as well be a different sport, and he's not as good at that sport defensively.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
7,836
Imaginationland
Giannis and Steph are hard to unseat. Wrt Jokic.....I just don't buy his defense. I know that he grades out well, but playoff basketball may as well be a different sport, and he's not as good at that sport defensively.
I get this, but I don't think the Nuggets have done an acceptable job of building around him. He's surrounded with mediocre defenders, which forces him to be more involved than he should be. I actually see him as relatively comparable to Curry, despite the obvious size difference. Both are acceptable defenders and transcendent offensive players, but while Curry plays alongside guys like Draymond and Wiggins (among others) and merely has to be adequate on defense, Jokic is asked to do more because his teammates are all worse.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,264
around the way
I get this, but I don't think the Nuggets have done an acceptable job of building around him. He's surrounded with mediocre defenders, which forces him to be more involved than he should be. I actually see him as relatively comparable to Curry, despite the obvious size difference. Both are acceptable defenders and transcendent offensive players, but while Curry plays alongside guys like Draymond and Wiggins (among others) and merely has to be adequate on defense, Jokic is asked to do more because his teammates are all worse.
Both DARKO and LEBRON love Jokic's defense. I don't get it either from the eyeball test, but the data is the data. And it's not always the case that those two metrics agree.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
9,475
NOVA
Also the ultimate dig-deep game. Again, a game they lose last season.

CJM made a nice adjustment of sticking Kornet in at the end to protect the paint and stop the rim runs. PTL and Horford will help out a lot there in the future. The "not calling the TO" in the first half of the game is OKish. BUT I'm not a fan of ignoring TOs in the 2nd half of games during massive runs to not adjust lineups to stop something.

Jaylen Brown taking a challenged mid-ranger with 8 secs left on the shot clock (33 secs left in OT) up 6pts is flat-out DUMB. Of course, someone will retort that's a good shot for him. TIME, SCORE, SITUATION for crying out loud. Please, have one of our 3PGs or Tatum used to salt games away.
Yes, he put Kornet in to cover the corner three and then would scram the roll on every Davis dive, essentially neutralizing Davis at the end of the game. Posters here have complained that he makes no in-game adjustments, which simply isn't true.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
7,864
Monument, CO
I get this, but I don't think the Nuggets have done an acceptable job of building around him. He's surrounded with mediocre defenders, which forces him to be more involved than he should be. I actually see him as relatively comparable to Curry, despite the obvious size difference. Both are acceptable defenders and transcendent offensive players, but while Curry plays alongside guys like Draymond and Wiggins (among others) and merely has to be adequate on defense, Jokic is asked to do more because his teammates are all worse.
It is way more important that a big can play defense. Jokic is always going to have to protect the rim and switch on screens and he is not great at it. You can hide a average to poor small but bigs who can't play defense get abused.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
19,850
Santa Monica
It is way more important that a big can play defense. Jokic is always going to have to protect the rim and switch on screens and he is not great at it. You can hide a average to poor small but bigs who can't play defense get abused.
his inability to play perimeter defense gets exposed in the playoffs when teams will scheme for it (get a wing on him in space) in the halfcourt

+++ defense is more important in the playoffs than in the regular season
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
7,836
Imaginationland
It is way more important that a big can play defense. Jokic is always going to have to protect the rim and switch on screens and he is not great at it. You can hide a average to poor small but bigs who can't play defense get abused.
his inability to play perimeter defense gets exposed in the playoffs when teams will scheme for it (get a wing on him in space) in the halfcourt

+++ defense is more important in the playoffs than in the regular season
I'm saying he CAN play defense (as Curry can), he's just not a ++ guy like Giannis/Embiid. It looks 10x worse because he's surrounded by teammates who can't play defense. Gobert was an excellent defender in Utah during the regular season, but in the playoffs teams would just move him around and he couldn't cover for all of his shitty teammates, so it looked like he was exposed. What will happen in Denver is a lesser version of that (since obviously Jokic isn't Gobert). It's a disservice to Jokic that his two best teammates are legitimately crummy defenders (especially MPJ).
 

the moops

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 19, 2016
4,607
Saint Paul, MN
I get this, but I don't think the Nuggets have done an acceptable job of building around him. He's surrounded with mediocre defenders, which forces him to be more involved than he should be.
I think this year he is surrounded by very capable defenders. Bruce Brown, KCP, and Aaron Gordon are all good
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
47,830
I think this year he is surrounded by very capable defenders. Bruce Brown, KCP, and Aaron Gordon are all good
I agree that they are good defenders but no matter whether you use ham and egger defense stats or the newer variety, the Nuggets are a sieve this year.
They currently allow the third most PPP and to me that's one of the best defensive stats in terms of recording what matters.

Its early yet but Denver has work to do.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
29,910
I think this year he is surrounded by very capable defenders. Bruce Brown, KCP, and Aaron Gordon are all good
The entire Nuggets group, Jokic included, has been going through the motions defensively as much as any team this year. Maybe they “can” be capable but they certainly haven’t shown it. Not Brown, Not KCP and certainly not Jokic who has watched more open 3’s taken in front of him than the Warriors Asst coaches during pregame. The fallacy of individual defensive metrics within a team defense are real.
 
Last edited:

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
63,526
Both DARKO and LEBRON love Jokic's defense. I don't get it either from the eyeball test, but the data is the data. And it's not always the case that those two metrics agree.
The Shane Battier effect?

Like, even if a guy beats you, dictating if he beats you left or right based on his known percentages from each angle should count in your favor, even if you look like you got borderline clowned.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,264
around the way
The Shane Battier effect?

Like, even if a guy beats you, dictating if he beats you left or right based on his known percentages from each angle should count in your favor, even if you look like you got borderline clowned.
Jokic is a very smart player. And while he's far from nimble, I wouldn't be surprised if what you're saying is happening in a practical way. McHale had a lot of defensive skills, and he wouldn't guard guys like Kyrie on the perimeter either. Yet when folks blew by him, he could bother their shots from behind. He knew how to direct guys into help for sure.

Folks can decry defensive metrics, and I won't fault them for that. Even the baseball ones are sketchy, and folks have been hard work at them since the Carter administration. But I think that "we" basketball folks underestimate doughy looking tall guys at our peril. A bunch of completely independent set of metrics (BBRef also agrees) think that Jokic is good to very good on D. We should consider that imo.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
63,526
Jokic is a very smart player. And while he's far from nimble, I wouldn't be surprised if what you're saying is happening in a practical way. McHale had a lot of defensive skills, and he wouldn't guard guys like Kyrie on the perimeter either. Yet when folks blew by him, he could bother their shots from behind. He knew how to direct guys into help for sure.

Folks can decry defensive metrics, and I won't fault them for that. Even the baseball ones are sketchy, and folks have been hard work at them since the Carter administration. But I think that "we" basketball folks underestimate doughy looking tall guys at our peril. A bunch of completely independent set of metrics (BBRef also agrees) think that Jokic is good to very good on D. We should consider that imo.
Dunno if you can read this—NYTimes kinda sucks—but this article from 2009 was a wonderful look at how the new look at data was changing basketball, and includes stuff about how Battier was performing better than other players believed (Kobe thought he sucked but the data said otherwise) and Morley saying that it’s starting to appear that we’re not sure how to play basketball righr.

If you haven’t read it before, it is right up your alley, especially because it precedes so much of the more recent data work.

The subscription I was drafting off of from a friend was not renewed, otherwise I’d copy and paste the whole damn thing for you and everyone else because it’s a read I like to revisit every couple of years… anyone else? :) :wooper:

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
5,806
Cultural hub of the universe
[QUOTE="Jimbodandy, post: 5325932, member: 19598"

Folks can decry defensive metrics, and I won't fault them for that. Even the baseball ones are sketchy, and folks have been hard work at them since the Carter administration. But I think that "we" basketball folks underestimate doughy looking tall guys at our peril. A bunch of completely independent set of metrics (BBRef also agrees) think that Jokic is good to very good on D. We should consider that imo.
[/QUOTE]

To me this is the best use of metrics, to use them to challenge your assumptions. Maybe Jokic is a good defender? Worth taking a closer look for sure.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
29,910
Jokic is a very smart player. And while he's far from nimble, I wouldn't be surprised if what you're saying is happening in a practical way. McHale had a lot of defensive skills, and he wouldn't guard guys like Kyrie on the perimeter either. Yet when folks blew by him, he could bother their shots from behind. He knew how to direct guys into help for sure.

Folks can decry defensive metrics, and I won't fault them for that. Even the baseball ones are sketchy, and folks have been hard work at them since the Carter administration. But I think that "we" basketball folks underestimate doughy looking tall guys at our peril. A bunch of completely independent set of metrics (BBRef also agrees) think that Jokic is good to very good on D. We should consider that imo.
The game was completely different when McHale played though. If he let a forward or a center take a perimeter shot that’s what his coaches wanted. Today, all opponents have to do to get an uncontested 3 is to switch Jokic on one of their shooters or structure their lineup to have shooting bigs on the floor bc he’s rarely contesting them and when he is and the ball moves he’s out of position to rotate.

There are reasons why Denver is 28th in the NBA in Def Rat which doesn’t even do their ineffectiveness justice as they play at a slow pace to teams aren’t getting runout numbers……and Jokic is a large part of it. I do agree he’s fair to good around the basket so maybe that is weighted more I don’t know.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,645
The game was completely different when McHale played though. If he let a forward or a center take a perimeter shot that’s what his coaches wanted. Today, all opponents have to do to get an uncontested 3 is to switch Jokic on one of their shooters or structure their lineup to have shooting bigs on the floor bc he’s rarely contesting them and when he is and the ball moves he’s out of position to rotate.

There are reasons why Denver is 28th in the NBA in Def Rat which doesn’t even do their ineffectiveness justice as they play at a slow pace to teams aren’t getting runout numbers……and Jokic is a large part of it. I do agree he’s fair to good around the basket so maybe that is weighted more I don’t know.
Yeah, I don’t care what the metrics say about the defense of a C that’s useless more than 12’ from the basket. That’s a ginormous defensive disadvantage for a team and if you’re building your entire team around a guy like that you have to sell out to offense. You just can’t blame the teammates for that and sweep the problem under the rug.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,149
Melrose, MA
Well, the Celtics wanted no part of playing this game and it showed. Mo Fucking Wagner, the bad Wagner, destroyed the Celtics, shooting 9-12 for 25 points.

Outside of a great stretch in the third quarter, one that was entirely attributable to Rob Williams, they were lifeless and disinterested from wire to wire. Unfortunately, when they brought Rob back inn the fourth, he was as lifeless as the rest of the team, consistently losing several straight battles on the offensive and defensive glass. Hopefully just a first game back thing.

Once again, with the team giving a listless effort at home and the crowd checked out, Mazzulla refused to put Pritchard in.

Rob's season debut was the only good thing about this game. He played 18 minutes, had 9 points, 4-4 from the field, 5 rebounds, an assist, a steal, a block, a turnover, and was a -6. In the first quarter, he looked terribly lost, picking up 3 fouls in 4 minutes, flying all over the place to no great effect. He did finish a lob from Smart. He looked a bit better. Then he was great in the third quarter, did most of his scoring and rebounding there. The Celtics, who had one of those "Orlando has shot blockers so we aren't even going to bother to try to get into the paint" type of games, had their lone good stretch of play in this game in the third when they started using Rob to draw the attention to the big and allow the Celtics to drive, either to fonish themselves, or give it to Rob. He also kept a bunch of plays alive on the offensive glass. Unfortunately, that must of been all he had because he was wholly ineffective in the fourth, other than as a decoy.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
9,920
Once again, with the team giving a listless effort at home and the crowd checked out, Mazzulla refused to put Pritchard in.
This is mystifying to me. It's one thing to keep Pritchard stapled to the bench when Brogdon, Smart and White are playing well. But Pritch has shown time and again during his short NBA career that he can provide a spark. What do the C's have to lose when they're already playing poorly?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
29,910
This is mystifying to me. It's one thing to keep Pritchard stapled to the bench when Brogdon, Smart and White are playing well. But Pritch has shown time and again during his short NBA career that he can provide a spark. What do the C's have to lose when they're already playing poorly?
This is a short term mentality though. What are the long term repercussions of benching one of your key players and his response? How do Tatum, Brown and Smart feel about one of their regulars being benched in the 4Q?

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but there is more to winning an NBA Championship than messing with your key guys over an essentially meaningless game in December.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
7,864
Monument, CO
I really wished they had gone small in the 4th instead of going to Blake. Griffen is a once a week player and played way to much on the road trip to be effective tonight. I admire how he plays but his body needs the rest and it is unfair to ask him to play this much.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,782
Well, the Celtics wanted no part of playing this game and it showed. Mo Fucking Wagner, the bad Wagner, destroyed the Celtics, shooting 9-12 for 25 points.

Outside of a great stretch in the third quarter, one that was entirely attributable to Rob Williams, they were lifeless and disinterested from wire to wire. Unfortunately, when they brought Rob back inn the fourth, he was as lifeless as the rest of the team, consistently losing several straight battles on the offensive and defensive glass. Hopefully just a first game back thing.

Once again, with the team giving a listless effort at home and the crowd checked out, Mazzulla refused to put Pritchard in.

Rob's season debut was the only good thing about this game. He played 18 minutes, had 9 points, 4-4 from the field, 5 rebounds, an assist, a steal, a block, a turnover, and was a -6. In the first quarter, he looked terribly lost, picking up 3 fouls in 4 minutes, flying all over the place to no great effect. He did finish a lob from Smart. He looked a bit better. Then he was great in the third quarter, did most of his scoring and rebounding there. The Celtics, who had one of those "Orlando has shot blockers so we aren't even going to bother to try to get into the paint" type of games, had their lone good stretch of play in this game in the third when they started using Rob to draw the attention to the big and allow the Celtics to drive, either to fonish themselves, or give it to Rob. He also kept a bunch of plays alive on the offensive glass. Unfortunately, that must of been all he had because he was wholly ineffective in the fourth, other than as a decoy.
Good summary. It's also REALLY hard to make the theory of this team work when you shoot 15% from 3 for the final 3.5 quarters.

Any NBA team can stop any other NBA team from getting quality 2-point looks simply by collapsing the D fully into the paint on any drive, and teams have been doing that to the Celtics a lot in this bad stretch.

The Celtics are missing a LOT of quality 3s, including ones coming off drives/rotation. Without a dominant inside scorer, it's hard to win that way. Tatum, Brown, and Brogdon all need spacing to be effective inside.

As you note, having Rob vertically space near the rim was the only real way around this, and his conditioning just isn't there enough yet for that to be a consistent approach.

At the end of the day, if the Celtics are going to be Russell Westbrook as a team, they're going to get defended like Russell Westbrook, and it's going to work well for opponents.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,149
Melrose, MA
This is a short term mentality though. What are the long term repercussions of benching one of your key players and his response? How do Tatum, Brown and Smart feel about one of their regulars being benched in the 4Q?

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but there is more to winning an NBA Championship than messing with your key guys over an essentially meaningless game in December.
Pritchard should have been part of the late 3rd/early 4th subs. I think zero players would have objected to him playing those minutes or to him staying out there if it was working. If not, Mazzulla would have taken him out.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,782
Pritchard should have been part of the late 3rd/early 4th subs. I think zero players would have objected to him playing those minutes or to him staying out there if it was working. If not, Mazzulla would have taken him out.
He also has a chance of not having dead legs and maybe hitting some 3s.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
9,920
This is a short term mentality though. What are the long term repercussions of benching one of your key players and his response? How do Tatum, Brown and Smart feel about one of their regulars being benched in the 4Q?

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but there is more to winning an NBA Championship than messing with your key guys over an essentially meaningless game in December.
I'm not suggesting benching any of the front-line guys. Just find a few minutes here and there for Pritchard on these nights when the team needs a spark. He's shown he can provide one.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
63,526
This is mystifying to me. It's one thing to keep Pritchard stapled to the bench when Brogdon, Smart and White are playing well. But Pritch has shown time and again during his short NBA career that he can provide a spark. What do the C's have to lose when they're already playing poorly?
This is a short term mentality though. What are the long term repercussions of benching one of your key players and his response? How do Tatum, Brown and Smart feel about one of their regulars being benched in the 4Q?

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but there is more to winning an NBA Championship than messing with your key guys over an essentially meaningless game in December.
Several of the players have said that Mazzulla’s reticence to call timeouts when the opposing team is going on a run is because he wants them to “learn” to play through it. I think the logical inference here is that that’s the same reason he leaves the guys out there to struggle instead of putting The Pritch in.

I put the word “learn” in quotation marks because it has really struck me that the players used that word. Like, as @HomeRunBaker suggests, it’s well known that many teams see the regular season as just the prelude to the preseason. For Mazzulla, a first year interim head coach, to so explicitlyu treat the entire regular season as a training exercise is pretty hardcore. Frustrating for us fans to watch at times, but it’s also kinda badass.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
13,950
With a good night's sleep to think about it, I really don't think they played that badly last night - just seemed like the ultimately make/miss league game. The ball was moving around, they were driving and kicking, and I can think of MANY times Cs shooters were just wide open (like, standing there with no one around them and time to take a dribble open) and they just missed.

No one thought they were going to shoot 43% from three as a team for the season, and no one should think they're as bad at shooting as they were last night.

With Al ejected, they also lost focus on the boards, plus some of the Magic misses were so horrendous they just bounced out to the three point line and the Magic collected.

I expect a blowout on Sunday in the Cs favor, with like 22 made threes.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
63,526
With a good night's sleep to think about it, I really don't think they played that badly last night - just seemed like the ultimately make/miss league game. The ball was moving around, they were driving and kicking, and I can think of MANY times Cs shooters were just wide open (like, standing there with no one around them and time to take a dribble open) and they just missed.
I’m curious to see if anyone else saw this the same way, but I felt like they were pressing a bit—perhaps because they’ve been struggling and over-compensating? Like, when guys got the ball for an open three, they shot it more quickly than they really had to. In the past, when the offense was humming, it looked to me like the open guy really took that extra half second to set and shoot his shot. Last night, I noticed a lot of times guys would put it up as soon as they received it even if they could have taken a moment.

Thoughts? Anyone else see that? I sorta hope that’s the case, because that would be correctable just by settling down.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,899
Several of the players have said that Mazzulla’s reticence to call timeouts when the opposing team is going on a run is because he wants them to “learn” to play through it. I think the logical inference here is that that’s the same reason he leaves the guys out there to struggle instead of putting The Pritch in.

I put the word “learn” in quotation marks because it has really struck me that the players used that word. Like, as @HomeRunBaker suggests, it’s well known that many teams see the regular season as just the prelude to the preseason. For Mazzulla, a first year interim head coach, to so explicitlyu treat the entire regular season as a training exercise is pretty hardcore. Frustrating for us fans to watch at times, but it’s also kinda badass.
There was a long piece on Mazzulla last week in the Glob where he explained it in just those terms.
 

ragnarok725

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
6,356
Somerville MA
With a good night's sleep to think about it, I really don't think they played that badly last night - just seemed like the ultimately make/miss league game. The ball was moving around, they were driving and kicking, and I can think of MANY times Cs shooters were just wide open (like, standing there with no one around them and time to take a dribble open) and they just missed.

No one thought they were going to shoot 43% from three as a team for the season, and no one should think they're as bad at shooting as they were last night.

With Al ejected, they also lost focus on the boards, plus some of the Magic misses were so horrendous they just bounced out to the three point line and the Magic collected.

I expect a blowout on Sunday in the Cs favor, with like 22 made threes.
Yeah, and it goes back further than that - I'm chalking up the last week of rough play far more to shooting regression than bad habit formation or lack of effort.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,899
I’m curious to see if anyone else saw this the same way, but I felt like they were pressing a bit—perhaps because they’ve been struggling and over-compensating? Like, when guys got the ball for an open three, they shot it more quickly than they really had to. In the past, when the offense was humming, it looked to me like the open guy really took that extra half second to set and shoot his shot. Last night, I noticed a lot of times guys would put it up as soon as they received it even if they could have taken a moment.

Thoughts? Anyone else see that? I sorta hope that’s the case, because that would be correctable just by settling down.
Makes sense. In baseball and hockey, slumping players "squeeze the bat/stick a little too much". We already know they're good players and a good team. It was unlikely that 4 players were going to set 3pt shooting records. They still have the best w/l record. And some nights they are all going to suck.

Funny, though. I saw them both shooting more quickly AND hesitating. Other side of the same pressing coin.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,149
Melrose, MA
With a good night's sleep to think about it, I really don't think they played that badly last night - just seemed like the ultimately make/miss league game. The ball was moving around, they were driving and kicking, and I can think of MANY times Cs shooters were just wide open (like, standing there with no one around them and time to take a dribble open) and they just missed.
My perception was different. I thought there were too many possessions when the ball never touched the paint and sometimes never touched a second player.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
29,910
I'm not suggesting benching any of the front-line guys. Just find a few minutes here and there for Pritchard on these nights when the team needs a spark. He's shown he can provide one.
But that’s what it is and how a front line player would view it if he’s replaced by or bypassed in the rotation by a deep bench non-rotation player. The time to extend your rotation is on a B2B which we have done but on 2-days rest with a day off the following day the regs want their minutes……except Horford who wanted to treat Mo Wags like his personal Julius Hodge (Chris Paul reference).
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
29,910
My perception was different. I thought there were too many possessions when the ball never touched the paint and sometimes never touched a second player.
^^^This

The team completely went through the motions in a game that you could expect them to go through the motions following the road trip and Laker comeback win. We’ll see if the lack of crisp ball movement will return tomorrow with TL in the lineup.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
29,910
Pritchard should have been part of the late 3rd/early 4th subs. I think zero players would have objected to him playing those minutes or to him staying out there if it was working. If not, Mazzulla would have taken him out.
I disagree that players wouldn’t object to losing their minutes to a non-rotation player on a non-B2B. This is results-oriented stuff……the far better players didn’t get the job done so the coach should have played the inferior player. That’s not a real-time process in a non-B2B.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,782
I disagree that players wouldn’t object to losing their minutes to a non-rotation player on a non-B2B. This is results-oriented stuff……the far better players didn’t get the job done so the coach should have played the inferior player. That’s not a real-time process in a non-B2B.
The OKC game was not a B2B, and no one seemed particularly upset that Mazzulla salvaged a win by giving Pritchard some late 3rd/early 4th minutes.

I don't feel super-strongly about this one way or the other, but I think it's fair to criticize Mazzulla's thought process around PP as being a bit inconsistent.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,590
where I was last at
Its tough to rationalize a loss to a team that is 1-11 on the road, particularly by a team as deep as the Celts. They expected an easy W.
They had Al coming back TL was returning, they were coming off a somewhat miraculous CFBW in LA and they slept in their own beds.And they were playing the Magic.

Blowout in da Gahden.
Gino dancing by the half
Red passing out stogies

Except after a solid 5 minutes of hoop, they banged more rims than Sullivan Tires does in a month, forgot how to board and let a little holiday Magic ruin an otherwise nice single malt scoth fueled driven Friday night buzz. But credit to the Magic they earned the W while the Celts snoozed and CJM was reading Andy Redid's primer on game strategy and clock management.

I'm not going to make too much of it as there seems to be a travel effect, but this teams need to get on EST and wake the fuck up. Or wake the fuck-up and tell CJM its ok to use a TO or PP, from time to time out.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,270
With a good night's sleep to think about it, I really don't think they played that badly last night - just seemed like the ultimately make/miss league game. The ball was moving around, they were driving and kicking, and I can think of MANY times Cs shooters were just wide open (like, standing there with no one around them and time to take a dribble open) and they just missed.

No one thought they were going to shoot 43% from three as a team for the season, and no one should think they're as bad at shooting as they were last night.

With Al ejected, they also lost focus on the boards, plus some of the Magic misses were so horrendous they just bounced out to the three point line and the Magic collected.

I expect a blowout on Sunday in the Cs favor, with like 22 made threes.
I thought they played OK on offense, not great but they did miss a bunch of open 3Ps. JB had a few TOs and then there was the Horford flagrant 2 that sparked an ORL run.

I've not watched all of the West Coast games but it seems to me (from memory) that the Cs are being beat by teams that can nail the pull-up jumpers that the Cs are giving up - Mitchell, DeRozen, Klay/Steph/Poole, KL, and last night Cole Anthony (!?!) of all people and Fultz at the end. I know their scheme is to prevent 3Ps and rim shots but if teams are draining the mid-range at a high level, it puts enormous pressure on them shooting well night after night.

I will intetested in seeing how much switching they do once TL is reintegrated.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
9,920
I disagree that players wouldn’t object to losing their minutes to a non-rotation player on a non-B2B. This is results-oriented stuff……the far better players didn’t get the job done so the coach should have played the inferior player. That’s not a real-time process in a non-B2B.
So if a rotation player is struggling—I'm not talking about a Tatum or Brown, but a Derrick White or Brogdon—Mazzulla should never look elsewhere for fear of offending the struggling player?

Nobody's saying Pritchard should play big minutes in a playoff series in which his defensive shortcomings would be exposed. But you can lecture me about the nuances of NBA basketball for an eternity, and I'll never buy the argument that giving Pritchard some run in the second half last nite would have had long-term negative impact on the team culture.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,270
The OKC game was not a B2B, and no one seemed particularly upset that Mazzulla salvaged a win by giving Pritchard some late 3rd/early 4th minutes.

I don't feel super-strongly about this one way or the other, but I think it's fair to criticize Mazzulla's thought process around PP as being a bit inconsistent.
PP played in the OKC game because MB was out. IIRC, CJM only plays PP when one of White, Smart, or MB are out, which makes sense as you'd rarely (if ever) wanr to sit one of the other three players for PP so long as the outcome is in doubt.

So if a rotation player is struggling—I'm not talking about a Tatum or Brown, but a Derrick White or Brogdon—Mazzulla should never look elsewhere for fear of offending the struggling player?

Nobody's saying Pritchard should play big minutes in a playoff series in which his defensive shortcomings would be exposed. But you can lecture me about the nuances of NBA basketball for an eternity, and I'll never buy the argument that giving Pritchard some run in the second half last nite would have had long-term negative impact on the team culture.
ORL also strikes me as a super bad matchup for PP, when BOS switches, ORL is so long that PP would likely end up guarding someone 6'10" or bigger.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,899
Pritchard should have been part of the late 3rd/early 4th subs. I think zero players would have objected to him playing those minutes or to him staying out there if it was working. If not, Mazzulla would have taken him out.
I'm agnostic on who shouldve played last night, but players know when they're not playing particularly well, and they've all been around long enough to understand the concept of "nothing is working too well, maybe *this* will work." Bringing in, say Pritchard, is not a white-flag move.

EDIT: Or what @128 said.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
9,920
IIRC, CJM only plays PP when one of White, Smart, or MB are out, which makes sense as you'd rarely (if ever) wanr to sit one of the other three players for PP so long as the outcome is in doubt.
In general, I agree. But when White and Brogdon are struggling, as they were last nite, and the C's are down double digits in the second half and nobody's shots are falling, giving Pritchard a look is a no-risk move.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
29,910
So if a rotation player is struggling—I'm not talking about a Tatum or Brown, but a Derrick White or Brogdon—Mazzulla should never look elsewhere for fear of offending the struggling player?

Nobody's saying Pritchard should play big minutes in a playoff series in which his defensive shortcomings would be exposed. But you can lecture me about the nuances of NBA basketball for an eternity, and I'll never buy the argument that giving Pritchard some run in the second half last nite would have had long-term negative impact on the team culture.
Then I won’t but I will say that if you want to lose guy like White or Brogdon or Smart that is certainly the way to help a guy lose confidence, be pissed off at you, lose him, etc etc. It’s short sighted.

No, a key player shouldn’t be benched in a regular season game bc he’s having a bad night unless other factors are in play…..B2B where the player expects shorter minutes, injury, illness….those would qualify.