2023-24 Celtics

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,820
What if you are breaking a tie between the 10th and 11th teams? You can't exactly wait for the play-in results to decide who is in the play-in. Of course the issue has existed before, right? In the days before the play-in, you'd have a similar issue with the 8-9. Presumably only the top 7 teams counted as playoff teams to decide who the 8th playoff team was. And once you figured out who the 8th seed was you can imagine a scenario where that alters the seeding higher up the chain.

And of course you still have the same issue at 6-7 today. My guess is only the top 6 count as playoff teams, and the 6-7 tiebreak would probably only consider the top 5 and would presumably be done first. I think.

There's some inherent logical funkiness in deciding who is a playoff team by record against playoff teams when you haven't quite finished deciding who is and isn't a playoff team.

Edit: Honestly, it's possible I've twisted myself into a pretzel here, so I'm not even sure this makes any sense.
Edit: Of course it's possible they could just use the top 9 to decide 10 and 11, like they probably must have in the 8/9 secnario prior to the play-in.
Good point. Upon further review, I think I was wrong and I believe the exact words are “playoff-eligible teams” not “playoff teams”. Which suggests including teams that are in play-in.

While it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out part of me wishes the NBA would give some clarity on this.
 

kfoss99

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2009
1,257
Why aren't the play-in games considered playoff games?

I was talking to a co-worker about it. The games are win-or-go-home. Pretty much by definition that's a playoff game. We both found it odd they aren't considered playoff games.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,820
Why aren't the play-in games considered playoff games?

I was talking to a co-worker about it. The games are win-or-go-home. Pretty much by definition that's a playoff game. We both found it odd they aren't considered playoff games.
It's my understanding that the official reason is that teams in the "Play-In" game haven't officially qualified for the playoffs. (They also aren't regular season games as the regular season is over.) So all of the stats are in their own category. That's why JT (I believe) still holds the record in most points scored in a play-in game = 50.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/nba-play-in-tournament-records-points-rebounds-assists-steals-blocks/cadzfljpcasv0twtjyp9df2u
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,339
Why aren't the play-in games considered playoff games?

I was talking to a co-worker about it. The games are win-or-go-home. Pretty much by definition that's a playoff game. We both found it odd they aren't considered playoff games.
I imagine the reason is related to sanctity of playoff records. They don't want someone breaking an all-time playoff record in a game between two teams who wouldn't have even qualified for the playoffs under the old 1-8 system.

Also, the 7-8 game isn't technically win-or-go-home.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,339
Why aren't the play-in games considered playoff games?

I was talking to a co-worker about it. The games are win-or-go-home. Pretty much by definition that's a playoff game. We both found it odd they aren't considered playoff games.
Are the First Four games considered NCAA Tournament games?
 

kfoss99

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2009
1,257
Are the First Four games considered NCAA Tournament games?
I don't know. I don't follow college hoops. I'd still say it's a type of playoff game. If leagues want to treat Play-In as a separate thing for stats, that's fine. I just don't think it should be a purgatory where there's no official record.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,391
Santa Monica
I'm not quite there on the title being overwhelming probability. I like them a lot against everyone except Denver. They're a favorite against the Nuggets, but Denver's lack of depth doesn't hurt as much in a Finals setting.

It probably would come down to whether the Cs could crack Denver's "hedge Jokic hard and recover perfectly behind that" scheme that gave Tatum so much trouble a couple weeks ago, and that the Nuggets execute really well.
Here is my 2 cents on where the Nuggets' lack of depth will hurt them:

DENVER is heavily dependent on Jokic, but they are also dependent on their TOP5 starters. Take any of those 5 out (MPJ-shooter, KCP/Gordon defense, Murray-clutch shooting/offensive initiator) & the drop-off to the bench players is pretty large. Last season, they were 53-29, had perfect health, and a very easy road to an NBA Championship (Home court throughout, 3 PLAY-IN teams + #4 seed SUNs). They went 16-4 in the playoffs last year. They will find the WC a much harder/draining road to the FINALS this season. Malone will have to ride his TOP5 hard to escape the WC.

The flawed EC will be easier for Boston to navigate (Philly - Embiid injury, MIL - older/defense issues, ORL- young team, NYK -injuries, CLV - coaching/fit issues).

Celtics advantages: HOME court throughout, well-rested going into the playoffs, deep bench, & EC path will give them a huge advantage to whoever survives the WC.

Note: Sports Media has a strong anti-Boston slant. For example, I'm not a PATs fan & the way some of the Media describes their Super Bowls is laughable (Video/Deflate-Gates, Cheating, Lucky, Tuck Rule, Dumb Opponents, etc).

Celtic Net Rating (#3 All-Time) + Off Rtg (#1 All-Time) is not getting nearly the attention it should by the NBA media & the Nugget juggernaut is a little overhyped IMO.

A 2024 Celtic Championship team has a debatable claim of being one of the 10 greatest NBA teams ever & not one member of the NBA is even discussing it (just imagine if Lebron & the Lakers were putting up the Celtic stats:eek:).
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,767
Yeah, I'm not a superstitious person but still don't really want to bring this up, but what the heck, why not. I think this Celtics team, should they finish the season off with a championship, should be compared not to the 2008 team, but the 1986 team, which I think was one of the all-time greatest ever.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,597
Somewhere
I think Milwaukee, Orlando, Cleveland, Knicks, and yes, the Heat all have a chance to surprise the Celtics to the downside in the east. Everything looks easy now though.
 

dhellers

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2005
4,270
Silver Spring, Maryland
I'm a bit confused. Celtics official account posted this. But I thought they needed 1 more win or Bucks loss to clinch. Did I miss some obscure tiebreaker scenario? Not that it matters much, but I'm curious.

View: https://twitter.com/celtics/status/1772315584018927807
In the Bulls game thread NoInNixon posted an explanation (which boils down to an obscure tiebreaker scenario).

"#1 seed in East is clinched. If Boston loses every remaining game, and the Bucks win them all, they will be tied head to head, will both have won their division, and will have identical EC records. The next tiebreaker is record vs. EC playoff teams, which the Celtics have clinched. "

Next task: 5 more wins to clinch NBA best record (since Denver has the tie breaker).
 

Gene Conleys Plane Ticket

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
3,371
In the Bulls game thread NoInNixon posted an explanation (which boils down to an obscure tiebreaker scenario).

"#1 seed in East is clinched. If Boston loses every remaining game, and the Bucks win them all, they will be tied head to head, will both have won their division, and will have identical EC records. The next tiebreaker is record vs. EC playoff teams, which the Celtics have clinched. "

Next task: 5 more wins to clinch NBA best record (since Denver has the tie breaker).
Thanks! Appreciate pointing me to that explanation. Seems like much of the media hasn't caught on yet, since I'm still seeing headlines from today saying that they need to win tonight to clinch.

It's all academic anyway, but still nice to know exactly when they've actually got it nailed down.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,806
Melrose, MA
It's my understanding that the official reason is that teams in the "Play-In" game haven't officially qualified for the playoffs. (They also aren't regular season games as the regular season is over.) So all of the stats are in their own category. That's why JT (I believe) still holds the record in most points scored in a play-in game = 50.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/nba-play-in-tournament-records-points-rebounds-assists-steals-blocks/cadzfljpcasv0twtjyp9df2u
But, at the same time, one of his 50 point games lives is losty in the play in game ether, neither a playoff game nor a regular season one.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,687
Row 14
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrsSFP8j7uc


Go to minute 40

Ruocco goes there with the benefits of "Marcus Smart not being there"

Windhurst doesn't buy the Celtics running through the playoffs.
Brian gets White-Tatum +/- rank wrong (not surprising) and his $$$ is off (MacMahon laughs at him)
I love the Hoops Collective but if it is about the Celtics, Windhurst is going to be wrong about it. It is not just the Celtics, but Windhurst really abhors Northeast basketball - Philly, Brooklyn, Knicks, and Celtics. I suppose you can throw the Raptors and Wizards in there too. Not sure if it Cavs/Heat bias but he just does not put the time in with those teams. To be fair he abhors LA and San Francisco basketball as well though he does know the Warriors pretty well. The funny thing about this episode is Windhurst interupts Ruocco and fails right into Ruocco's point then tries to shame MacMahon who is laughing at him for missing the point.

One thing I like about the Hoops Collective is that they stick to West Coast/East Coast guy with Windhurst who does do a good job covering the middle of the country teams. The only thing I will say is the podcast overrates Luka a great deal.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
44,223
Here
The Celtics ability to avoid these late game isos in the playoffs is probably going to determine their ultimate fate. Joe’s single most important job is to make sure this does not happen.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,281
Pittsburgh, PA
From the gamethread, taking a throwaway one-liner way more seriously than it deserves to be:

If this goes this way, easily the worst loss of the year, even worse than the home Lakers one.
I mean, obviously tonight wasn't the worst, but... what WERE the worst losses of the year? For me, I think you have to start with the 6 games where we had (close to) everyone available, more or less tried our hardest, and still lost in a way that might make us doubt our ability to come through when it matters.

1. DEN at home. No altitude, no short rest, home crowd, all of our big 6 playing, had the lead with 4 minutes left, missed some shots, lost. Maybe Denver's our kryptonite! I was pretty bummed out, obviously in the moment but also on reflection. Plus it was our first home loss of the year.
2. LAC at home. By 19. Against one of the 3 teams you can argue have what it takes to be a real threat to us. Yes, it was our first game home after a road trip (though we had decent rest and not too many miles on that trip), yes they owed us one after we blew them out in LA a few weeks prior, yes we had no Porzingis. But this is one of the games we needed to measure ourselves by, and it wasn't a close loss, it was a blowout. Just lost focus, gonna have a few of these, sure - but against a top-tier contender like the Clippers? Oof.
3. LAL at home. Because they should never leave the Garden in anything but a state of disarray, preferably pursued by a bear*. Plus we had everyone available. I've seen this one excused a couple different ways, but excuses shouldn't come into play against the Lakers. I guess the players don't take the rivalry as seriously as we do, but this one bugged me, as it did everyone here.
4. @ OKC. Really well-fought well-played game for four quarters that was constant back-and-forth action. We had everyone available, had a brief lead towards the end of the 2nd, got down by as many as 18 in the 4th, then fought our way back to make it a one-possession game, where if KP's foot hadn't been on the 3 point line, we might well have tied it. No moral victories, though - that was a young team we should've taught a lesson to, and instead we were the ones looking tired and old by the end.
5. @ Cleveland, the Dean Wade game. Had everyone available, had a 22 point lead, lost it (and kinda lost our composure, too).
6. Tonight, @ ATL. Inferior team, had 30-point lead, but were missing Jrue and White. It would rank lower, frankly, but for what you can argue it says about our offensive execution when we start getting nervous, reverting to shitty habits instead of continuing to run the offense.

Also receiving votes from the voices in my head:
- @ Philly early in the season, had everyone available, up by 11 early, lost by 3. Rallied from 14 down in the 4th to make it respectable.
- @ Denver a few weeks ago. Everyone available. Followed the Dean Wade game, so we should've been sore about that. Could've taken it late, but didn't.
- @ Minnesota early in the season, in OT. Was missing White. We didn't know at the time they're one of the teams we should be measuring ourselves by, but we just looked lost offensively late.
- @ Indiana for the in-season tournament QFs. Missing Porzingis. Lost by 10 and it wasn't that close, kinda got run out of the building.

Losses I didn't give a shit about then, and still kinda don't (5): @ ORL for the IST (lost focus in the 2nd half, got blown out, whatever). @ MIL, the 33-point loss on a back to back. @ Charlotte, in OT, minus White and Horford. @ Indiana in January, was missing Tatum, lost by 2. @ GSW in Overtime, kinda a crazy game of missing shots and a long flight out there, was annoying but it happens.

* he gets the night off when the Cs play at home, obviously.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,726
Where are all the Xitters from the NBA podcast bros when they are marauding around the league for the better part of the past three months?

Mo Dakhil didn't post anything about the Cs during any their 57 wins?
 

Light-Tower-Power

ask me about My Pillow
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
16,083
Nashua, NH
Their only job over the next few weeks is to not get hurt. That’s literally it. They could go 5-5 or worse over the next 10 and they’re still going to blow the doors off whoever has the misfortune of drawing them in the first round.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,597
Somewhere
Honestly felt like a preseason game in the fourth. Big exhale after clinching the conference. I expect some rebound but they probably won’t continue steamrolling through the end of the season.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,385
Honestly felt like a preseason game in the fourth. Big exhale after clinching the conference. I expect some rebound but they probably won’t continue steamrolling through the end of the season.
Yeah this is a good loss. Humble them a little after running through everyone by 20 each night.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,726
Rusillo and Simmons will have thoughts about this game too. We don't need to hear them here but do you.

We have the playoffs coming up and these remaining games are indeed kind of meaningless. Any big takeaways need to be mocked imo. Check the standings scoreboard before you anxiety post.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,927
where the darn libs live
From the gamethread, taking a throwaway one-liner way more seriously than it deserves to be:



I mean, obviously tonight wasn't the worst, but... what WERE the worst losses of the year? For me, I think you have to start with the 6 games where we had (close to) everyone available, more or less tried our hardest, and still lost in a way that might make us doubt our ability to come through when it matters.

1. DEN at home. No altitude, no short rest, home crowd, all of our big 6 playing, had the lead with 4 minutes left, missed some shots, lost. Maybe Denver's our kryptonite! I was pretty bummed out, obviously in the moment but also on reflection. Plus it was our first home loss of the year.
2. LAC at home. By 19. Against one of the 3 teams you can argue have what it takes to be a real threat to us. Yes, it was our first game home after a road trip (though we had decent rest and not too many miles on that trip), yes they owed us one after we blew them out in LA a few weeks prior, yes we had no Porzingis. But this is one of the games we needed to measure ourselves by, and it wasn't a close loss, it was a blowout. Just lost focus, gonna have a few of these, sure - but against a top-tier contender like the Clippers? Oof.
3. LAL at home. Because they should never leave the Garden in anything but a state of disarray, preferably pursued by a bear*. Plus we had everyone available. I've seen this one excused a couple different ways, but excuses shouldn't come into play against the Lakers. I guess the players don't take the rivalry as seriously as we do, but this one bugged me, as it did everyone here.
4. @ OKC. Really well-fought well-played game for four quarters that was constant back-and-forth action. We had everyone available, had a brief lead towards the end of the 2nd, got down by as many as 18 in the 4th, then fought our way back to make it a one-possession game, where if KP's foot hadn't been on the 3 point line, we might well have tied it. No moral victories, though - that was a young team we should've taught a lesson to, and instead we were the ones looking tired and old by the end.
5. @ Cleveland, the Dean Wade game. Had everyone available, had a 22 point lead, lost it (and kinda lost our composure, too).
6. Tonight, @ ATL. Inferior team, had 30-point lead, but were missing Jrue and White. It would rank lower, frankly, but for what you can argue it says about our offensive execution when we start getting nervous, reverting to shitty habits instead of continuing to run the offense.

Also receiving votes from the voices in my head:
- @ Philly early in the season, had everyone available, up by 11 early, lost by 3. Rallied from 14 down in the 4th to make it respectable.
- @ Denver a few weeks ago. Everyone available. Followed the Dean Wade game, so we should've been sore about that. Could've taken it late, but didn't.
- @ Minnesota early in the season, in OT. Was missing White. We didn't know at the time they're one of the teams we should be measuring ourselves by, but we just looked lost offensively late.
- @ Indiana for the in-season tournament QFs. Missing Porzingis. Lost by 10 and it wasn't that close, kinda got run out of the building.

Losses I didn't give a shit about then, and still kinda don't (5): @ ORL for the IST (lost focus in the 2nd half, got blown out, whatever). @ MIL, the 33-point loss on a back to back. @ Charlotte, in OT, minus White and Horford. @ Indiana in January, was missing Tatum, lost by 2. @ GSW in Overtime, kinda a crazy game of missing shots and a long flight out there, was annoying but it happens.

* he gets the night off when the Cs play at home, obviously.
Jesus my guy, it *was* just a throwaway.

Also, they blew a 30 point lead. Blowing a 30 point lead is terrible. At least Denver and OKC were relatively good games all around.

But, yeah, a throwaway.
 

Red Averages

owes you $50
SoSH Member
Apr 20, 2003
9,215
Also pretty wild the Hawks shot 50% from 3, Celtics shot 28%, didn’t have their top two guards, and it’s the late offense that was the culprit. So many correctable things. Then again if you have Jrue or White out there to grab the rebounds that PP can’t, not make the fouls Springer did or stabilize the offense instead of iso or ineffective PnR, or the ability to actually hit one of these shots (Celtics were 0-4 from 3 in the 4th and 0-8 in the 3rd. Yes, 0-12 from 3 in the 2nd half…) it’s a comfortable win.

I’m glad they lost.

Celtics by 25+ on Thursday when they play the Hawks again (who btw play Wednesday as well)
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
22,281
Pittsburgh, PA
Jesus my guy, it *was* just a throwaway.

Also, they blew a 30 point lead. Blowing a 30 point lead is terrible. At least Denver and OKC were relatively good games all around.

But, yeah, a throwaway.
Sure, they were good games all around, but we gave it our best shot and lost all of them. And there haven't been many games against opponents of that quality where we gave it our best shot and won, either. Against the next best 7 teams in the league by SRS (DEN, OKC, MIN, NOP, NYK, LAC, MIL), we've gone 4-0 against the Knicks and 5-6 against the others (DEN 0-2, MIL 2-1, LAC 1-1, OKC 0-1, MIN 1-1, NOP 1-0). I don't love what that says about us, far more than I worry about our team losing focus in a late-season game where the shots stop falling and we are maybe not taking every possession super seriously. To be clear: the Cs are awesome and every other team is way more scared of us than we are of any of them (except maybe Denver). But if I'm looking for losses that might say something important, I'm starting with games where we were dialed in and gave it 100% and lost anyway.

And yeah, I know it was a throwaway, I'm not picking on your post to take issue with the reasoning. I just thought it was an interesting question as to which were the worst losses of the regular season. The team is so good that it's difficult to identify negative trends in our play, and instead we tend to latch onto specific things and play them up into patterns where there really is none. I don't think this team has a problem with blowing big leads - see e.g. all the staggeringly large leads we've built and maintained and won by this year. But I feel a lot better about the team if we flip either of those Denver losses, or the LAC loss, etc.
 

CaptainLaddie

dj paul pfieffer
SoSH Member
Sep 6, 2004
36,927
where the darn libs live
Sure, they were good games all around, but we gave it our best shot and lost all of them. And there haven't been many games against opponents of that quality where we gave it our best shot and won, either. Against the next best 7 teams in the league by SRS (DEN, OKC, MIN, NOP, NYK, LAC, MIL), we've gone 4-0 against the Knicks and 5-6 against the others (DEN 0-2, MIL 2-1, LAC 1-1, OKC 0-1, MIN 1-1, NOP 1-0). I don't love what that says about us, far more than I worry about our team losing focus in a late-season game where the shots stop falling and we are maybe not taking every possession super seriously. To be clear: the Cs are awesome and every other team is way more scared of us than we are of any of them (except maybe Denver). But if I'm looking for losses that might say something important, I'm starting with games where we were dialed in and gave it 100% and lost anyway.

And yeah, I know it was a throwaway, I'm not picking on your post to take issue with the reasoning. I just thought it was an interesting question as to which were the worst losses of the regular season. The team is so good that it's difficult to identify negative trends in our play, and instead we tend to latch onto specific things and play them up into patterns where there really is none. I don't think this team has a problem with blowing big leads - see e.g. all the staggeringly large leads we've built and maintained and won by this year. But I feel a lot better about the team if we flip either of those Denver losses, or the LAC loss, etc.
I know, I know. I'm a nervous nelly (go check out V&N) when it comes to shit, and tonight just sucked.

This, from ESPN, makes me queasy:

Before tonight's game, teams were 5-2,606 over the past 25 years in games they trailed by at least 30 points.
Like, that's not great! I would hope this team who's had a killer instinct all year, would.... I dunno, not lose a game like this?

I don't think it really matters long-term, mind you, but I'm a little antsy about the playoffs when they have a huge lead (even with their huge lead numbers all year where they just dominate).
 

timelysarcasm

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2010
1,427
Los Angeles by way of Roxbury
Ruocco made the point and it's one I agree with - the narrative around the Celtics (incorrect as it may be, based on totally different personnel, etc) is going to stick around until they (Tatum/Brown) win a championship. Expecting more nuanced, actual basketball informed takes from media personalities is a fool's errand. Anyone who has closely watched the team knows this is a completely different team for the better. They rarely play down to competition as they did last year. They are much better in late game situations. Watch the tape.

Tonight's loss as crappy but not super alarming. However, the Brown/Tatum crunch time isos aren't completely gone - especially when White is off the floor. When you shoot as poorly down the stretch as the Celtics did, it becomes glaringly obvious. Let them sit in it for a couple of days and get back to good basketball for these last few games.
 

lars10

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
11,874
I agree, but they had this same game in Cleveland 3 weeks ago. I guess 3 weeks is when the lesson learned fades.
And both games, at the end of the day, won't matter at all once the playoffs start... and in both cases the Celtics basically already had home court wrapped up. It's hard for me to believe that this team won't take things to another level once the playoffs start...when losing a game really matters.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,253
I agree, but they had this same game in Cleveland 3 weeks ago. I guess 3 weeks is when the lesson learned fades.
I think the regular season is just boring and too long. If anything, they've done well to have this happen so rarely, and to always require such hot shooting to barely beat them when it does happen.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,014
Saskatoon Canada
Missing White and Jrue to run the show a the end was the problem.
but...
I know anything but eternal optimism is frowned upon, but a team that goes away from it's strength at critical moments is a concern. This is such a balanced team, but the NBA idea the star has to be able and go score at the end of games hurts them. Tatum is more similar to Lebron than Kobe, but we know who he wants to be. To my eye at the end of games he quits making passes he makes earlier in the game, or cutting when Brown has the ball.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
12,253
Missing White and Jrue to run the show a the end was the problem.
but...
I know anything but eternal optimism is frowned upon, but a team that goes away from it's strength at critical moments is a concern. This is such a balanced team, but the NBA idea the star has to be able and go score at the end of games hurts them. Tatum is more similar to Lebron than Kobe, but we know who he wants to be. To my eye at the end of games he quits making passes he makes earlier in the game, or cutting when Brown has the ball.
I think it's fair to question aspects of their late-game offense. Generally they've been better about running their core stuff late this season, but there have been some noteable lapses.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
10,104
Where are all the Xitters from the NBA podcast bros when they are marauding around the league for the better part of the past three months?

Mo Dakhil didn't post anything about the Cs during any their 57 wins?
Pretty sure NBA media, apart from Perk, have been smothering the C's with praise this season. I've seen plenty on Twitter and heard plenty elsewhere about how dominant the C's have been.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
10,104
I don't find losses where nothing is at stake and the guys clearly don't care to be bad ones.
The thing is, they obviously cared for a half during which they built a 30-point lead. This loss would be easier to explain if they'd come out flat from the jump.
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
14,311
Everybody hates the end-of-game isos, but it’s weird that literally last week the way they ended up beating the Bucks was to say, “fuck the offense, just iso Tatum.” Where were all the “RUN THE OFFENSE” people then?

And the intensity ramps up at the end. The other team doesn’t just let you pass the ball around. Why don’t they give it to KP? Well, did you see the play late where he just threw the ball away because he was stuck at the arc with no plan?

The Cs should have won, clearly, but it’s way more about Sam Hauser going 2-10 from 3 and Bogdonavich finishing at the rim at will than it is about late-game isos.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,806
Melrose, MA
Missing White and Jrue to run the show a the end was the problem.
but...
I know anything but eternal optimism is frowned upon, but a team that goes away from it's strength at critical moments is a concern. This is such a balanced team, but the NBA idea the star has to be able and go score at the end of games hurts them. Tatum is more similar to Lebron than Kobe, but we know who he wants to be. To my eye at the end of games he quits making passes he makes earlier in the game, or cutting when Brown has the ball.
There is a play with about 8 minutes left where Jayson Tatum, not really being pressured, walks the ball up the court so slowly he gets called for an 8 second violation. Their approach to a late game rockfight is basically slowing the pace as much as they possibly can and then four guys watching Tatum or Brown throw up a contested shot. I guess they are hunting matchups, which can work, but when they throw away everything that makes their offense good in order to do that it becomes a problem.

They play 4th quarters at a much slower pace then the rest of the league and their offense fades more than other teams (though still very good).
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,263
The 8 second violation was embarrassing. I was curious why they didn’t start PP with White and Holiday out. Didn’t seem to matter as they built that huge lead. But then they started PP in the second half. I didn’t like Jaylen’s 3P from like 5 feet beyond the arc in the first half. Kind of gave the game a “it’s the all star game we’re just going to good around feel” to it.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,391
Santa Monica
I'll just repeat what I said in the Gamethread: last night's game should help the team in the long run.

Everyone got to see the effects of:
1. Joe purposely not calling a TO in Q3 to see if the players could stop an opposing run on the road.
2. Sloooowed down ISO dribble coma fest + 4 potted plant offense VS. physical perimeter Defense
3. Shooting 29% from 3 vs the opponent shooting 50% while being outrebounded (a 2-point loss is rather amazing).

The team gets plenty of usable data from games like this and the CAVs/Nuggets losses.

If we can see it, the rest of the League can see it. REFs letting defenders get physical with the JAYs on the perimeter (Miami's playbook) can bog down the Celtic offense especially when Tatum/Brown initiate.

It's up to Boston to develop counters to that.
For example, White/KP pick-n-roll is one of the most efficient offensive plays in the NBA.

Be prepared for the anti-Celtic NBA Media to crawl out from under their rocks since it draws clicks from 29 other fan bases.

Everybody hates the end-of-game isos, but it’s weird that literally last week the way they ended up beating the Bucks was to say, “fuck the offense, just iso Tatum.” Where were all the “RUN THE OFFENSE” people then?
Milwaukee's perimeter defense is a tire fire, probably the worst in the NBA.

Unfortunately, Tatum won't get to hunt Dame throughout the playoffs

I'm also not sure that's a great example, since Boston almost coughed up a 20+ point 4th quarter lead by slowing it down.
(the Celtics offense scored 21 points in Q4 after scoring 101 points in the first 3 Quarters).
 
Last edited: