Celtics hire Ime Udoka as HC

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,965
I think he has to go back to the bench, for the simple reason that he is not long for the team.
So let’s bench Tatum and tank the season then if none of this matters until we build this fictitious future where there are no player transactions. What does next years roster and this coming summers personnel moves have to do with winning games this year?

View: https://youtu.be/b5-iJUuPWis
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,573
Kiev, Ukraine
So let’s bench Tatum and tank the season then if none of this matters until we build this fictitious future where there are no player transactions. What does next years roster and this coming summers personnel moves have to do with winning games this year?

View: https://youtu.be/b5-iJUuPWis
Not to mention that playing DS lets Tatum, Brown, and Smart get a year of reps in their natural spots.
 

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
913
Not to mention that playing DS lets Tatum, Brown, and Smart get a year of reps in their natural spots.
Whether DS returns to the bench or no, one would think that Smart is still going to play half his minutes as the small.
 

FanRoy

lurker
Aug 14, 2008
39
Orlando, FL
I agree on the need for dribble penetration (unless Tatum really commits to it - but I doubt that). Could be some locker room considerations at play, as well as the fact that Schroder has no long term future with this team in contrast to Smart.
Do the Celtics really want Tatum penetrating as a lead guard? At best, his handle is... loose. I know many of you seem to think he needs to work on his shot taking decision making, but I actually think he takes many of his mid range shots because he can't get to his spots regularly if he's not being set up by teammates. And he's kind of a ball dominant chucker. That's not a characteristic you want from someone who is taking on more responsibility as lead penetrator. I'm not even sure I agree with so many of you who think his playmaking is improving. I am not sure if this will make sense, but... I do think it's "better", but I think that's more a result of his handle improving enough which allows him to express his playmaking in a way where we mistakenly believe it to be more of an improvement in playmaking rather than simply dribbling. He's still not someone I trust to take over what Schroder does best, though. Jaylen is similar. HRB is right, Smart isn't really a distributor/can't get to his spots, though he does have the best/most creative vision on the team. Obviously Al/Rob aren't going to give you much as penetrators. I just think an offense without Schroder right now is going to see a bunch of failed drives/perimeter passes without much incision.

"Let's build the team around a core player who'll be gone next year" seems like not an ideal strategy.
Who's building the team around Schroder? He's a PG who's setting up our primary "core" players - Jaylen and Jayson - as well as freeing up perhaps our biggest jackknife in Marcus to do what he does best - terrorize literally every player on the opposing team, rather than chasing around waterbugs. When Jaylen comes back, DS's role will be reduced. In a league where immediate results matter (though it seems Brad and the Celtics have a longer leash than most, deservedly), the ideal strategy is to put yourself in a position to win as many games as possible. That's done, IMO, by playing Schroder with the starters to help the offense become more efficient now, and will definitely help in the playoffs when defenses really start to clamp down. Maybe this can be somewhat matchup dependent, but Schroder is undeniably better at leading an offense than Marcus Smart is. And I *LOVE* me some MS, just a little less when he's out of position.

The composition of next season's roster should play no part on who starts and who is first off the bench for this year's team. If my GM and coach thought that way, I would fire them both immediately.

I'm OK with DS coming off the bench; I think who starts can be overrated. John Havlicek made a nice career out of being first off the bench.
In juxtaposition to above, I don't think this is the answer, either. If you're going to piss off Marcus, or other long-term teammates, you can't simply treat these men as robots. A coach (and to a lesser extent, GM) needs to be able to soothe personalities. You can't always do what is "best" for the team, because what is best is keeping players engaged and happy, not maximizing efficiency. A great coach will be marry those two concepts as very closely intertwined by balancing what is best for the team and what is best for each player, but perhaps that is not a realistic goal 17 games into a career.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
34,205
Melrose, MA
The composition of next season's roster should play no part on who starts and who is first off the bench for this year's team. If my GM and coach thought that way, I would fire them both immediately.
I think that for a team in the position of this year's Celtics, sustainability should be a key and maybe the key consideration. "If my GM and coach try to build for the long term instead of pushing all the chips in on this year, I would fire them both immediately" is not a statement you would endorse.
If you think you can find another PG like Schroder next offseason (should be available for $7-14MM), it's not a crazy strategy at all. Very similar to how the team approaches the C position, which makes sense.

It's perfectly fine to build your team's strategy around continuously slotting guys in to a somewhat fungible role. Makes a lot more sense than trying to jam Smart into a role that's bad for him.
This is a good point, but it, too, raises questions. The first is, can we find a PG like Schroder for exception money next year? The second is, do we want to find a PG like Schroder for exception money next year? All the Celtics PGs over the past 6-7 years have been pure scorers, all typically at or near the bottom of the league in how much of thier usage goes to distributing. Do we still want that?
 

FanRoy

lurker
Aug 14, 2008
39
Orlando, FL
This is a good point, but it, too, raises questions. The first is, can we find a PG like Schroder for exception money next year? The second is, do we want to find a PG like Schroder for exception money next year? All the Celtics PGs over the past 6-7 years have been pure scorers, all typically at or near the bottom of the league in how much of thier usage goes to distributing. Do we still want that?
Definitely in agreement regarding your first point (not quoted). Regarding the bolded, are you simply asking a question, is it rhetorical, or are you implying that is what DS is? We relied on score first PGs the past few years because we didn't quite have the scorers we now have in Tatum and Jaylen - both capable of averaging 25+ ppg. IMO, we absolutely don't need a score first lead guard, but someone who can distribute and switch admirably without causing the defense to crater. I believe that is what DS is and what we should be looking for going forward.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
5,021
I’d like to see how a starting line up of DS, Smart, JB, JT, and one of Timelord/Horford would fare. It will be a lot more difficult for other teams to match up with Tatum as the putative PF than matching up with AL and Rob Williams Together as starters

Tatum, Brown, and Smart can all cover bigger players, and bigger players will have trouble covering them
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
34,205
Melrose, MA
Definitely in agreement regarding your first point (not quoted). Regarding the bolded, are you simply asking a question, is it rhetorical, or are you implying that is what DS is? We relied on score first PGs the past few years because we didn't quite have the scorers we now have in Tatum and Jaylen - both capable of averaging 25+ ppg. IMO, we absolutely don't need a score first lead guard, but someone who can distribute and switch admirably without causing the defense to crater. I believe that is what DS is and what we should be looking for going forward.
To clarify, I am absolutely 100% saying that Schoder is a high usage scorer who isn't a distributor, in the same general mold as Kyrie, IT, Kemba even though they all have their differences in how they do things. I do not believe that teh Celtics should continue down that road, but I'm open for discussion. I don't there's credible a case to be made that Schroder can play PG as a Rondo-style distributor.
Who's building the team around Schroder? He's a PG who's setting up our primary "core" players - Jaylen and Jayson - as well as freeing up perhaps our biggest jackknife in Marcus to do what he does best - terrorize literally every player on the opposing team, rather than chasing around waterbugs.
The bolded is simply not accurate.

The Celtics are on a 5-2 run where both Smart and Schroder have played very well. It's an interesting comparison because the team has been winning and both players have been important contributors.

Schroder: 35.3 minutes, 55% FGA (38% from 3), 23.6 points, 4.0 rebounds, 4.0 assists, 0.7 steals, 4.3 turnovers
Smart: 35.4 minutes, 44% FGA (25% from 3), 12.1 points, 4.1 rebounds, 7.1 assists, 2.6 steals, 1.3 turnovers

Also, for reference:
Tatum: 36.3 minutes, 43% FGA (38% from 3), 28.1 points, 8.9 rebounds, 3.9 assists, 0.9 steals, 2.7 turnovers

Schroder's line makes clear that - as good as he has been - setting up our core players is not really on his agenda. This isn't Rajon Rondo, and asking him to become Rondo and change from "being a primary scorer" to "setting up the 2 primary scorers" is arguably not going to succeed, because Schroder doesn't do this. Start Tatum, Brown, and Schroder and at least one of them will be pissed about not getting touches and shots.

He's tailor made to be on the floor when Tatum and/or Brown are not in the game, provided he's not being asked to facilitate.

Bringing Brown off the bench when he returns (assuming no health restrictions) would be a catastrophically stupid idea, but still a better idea than having all 3 of them start.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,573
Kiev, Ukraine
This is a good point, but it, too, raises questions. The first is, can we find a PG like Schroder for exception money next year? The second is, do we want to find a PG like Schroder for exception money next year? All the Celtics PGs over the past 6-7 years have been pure scorers, all typically at or near the bottom of the league in how much of thier usage goes to distributing. Do we still want that?
Sure, good points. How I think about it:
1. Probably, since we're not just talking the taxpayer MLE. It can also be a trade of someone like Richardson, package some other salaries together (could guarantee Hernangomez), use one of the trade exceptions (possibly by rolling one into a player this season). If you look around the league, you can nearly always find a decent PG type in the $6-15M price range (admittedly a wide range). It's not as fungible as C, but "ok defense scoring PG" is a lot easier to find than "well-rounded wing".

2. I'd be fine with this. The idea of a distribute-first PG is somewhat outdated anyway: most of the best passers now are serious scoring threats, who use that to set up any passing that happens. The 2019-2020 Celtics, featuring a score-first PG, were a really good team in hindsight. Most of the subsequent issues had to do with Kemba not being a strong scoring threat anymore. Schroder has fixed that this year, and it's looked good, as long as the team starts hitting some shots.

If your PG isn't a scoring threat, you end up with the Marcus situation: it's hard for him to create threatening offensive possessions as a primary initiator, although he does well in secondary attacks or playing off other guys.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
This would only be DS's 2nd season with a TS% above league average. He's currently at .563 and the league is at .550. His TS% the previous 2 years were .573 (league: .565)) and .543 (league: .572). Up until the last 2.x seasons, his TS% was .514ish.Also, while not a great 3 point shooter, he's at .351 since the start of the 18/19 season, or his last 222 games. Prior to that, he was at .320 in 352.

Even if he shoots at a .333 clip from 3, the Celtics can easily live with that. This is especially true when the league is currently shooting .344 from 3. He's slightly below average. He's honestly not that far off from being the "3rd" star the Celtics need. Ideally, he'd be hitting closer to 36-38% of his 3s, but he's more than acceptable with the Jays as long as the other 2 players can space the floor. He can provide 18-20 points a night and score even when his 3 point shot isn't falling, and while he's not a pure playmaker, he's more than acceptable as a PG. I'm not sure this team would do well with a "traditional PG", and I'm not sure there are more than 5 traditional PGs in the league anyway. Plus, despite the problem the C's have had with playmaking, they actually have a bunch of above average playmakers at other positions. I still think they could use a better playmaker, but they don't need a Rondo level distributor.

The only thing stopping DS from being the 3rd star is 3 point shooting and that there's no realistic way to bring him back after this year. His 3 point shooting is hardly a detriment with the Jays (assuming Tatum returns to form, and he will), it just depends on the other 2 guys on the court.

Everyone's been saying it for 2-3 years now, but the C's really need another shooter. It would be great if they could swap out one of Smart or JRich for one, and even better if they could add one without moving one of the top 7. Or Grant Williams turns into that guy, flaws and all. It really is something that Grant Williams is probably going to be the best player we drafted in a 4 year period (I'm dreaming on Juhann but chances are against him). Most of the board loved him his rookie year, hated him his 2nd year, and are resigned to him playing 15-20 mpg this year because that's just how the NBA works. Every team is going to have a Semi type playing 15-20, hopefully it's only 1.

As far as Semi types, Grant is a really good one to have. It looks like he may evolve into more than that too, though he's always going to be a flawed player. He's looking more like a rotation player you want to play rather than a rotation player you'd prefer to use in match ups that favor him, but outside of a few exceptions, you can't because he's still better than the other options. That's worded terribly but hopefully people get my point.

Every team in the league is playing a "bad" player 15-20 mpg. For awhile, Brandon Bass was considered to be Mr. Average (the average NBA player). I'm not that convinced Brandon Bass is all that much better than Grant Williams. From a numbers perspective, they are actually a lot a like if you factor in for era. There are also a lot of things to like in the early going. Grant's 2PFG% is at .679, his first 2 years .548 and .508. HIs first 2 seasons, 28% and 27.5% of his shots were from 3ft-3pt, this year: 16.3%. 67.5% of his shots are from 3, the first 2 seasons 45.5%, and 52.2%. His FT% has also bounced back in the early going. He's 15/17, .882, after going 39/54, .722 his rookie year and 30/51 .588 last year. He's also turning the ball over CONSIDERABLY less. First 2 seasons, 17.6% and 17.2%. In the early going this year, 7.9%. He's also fouling way less. First 2 years, 5.6 PF/36 and 5.1 PF/36. This year, 2.8PF/36. Assist/TO ratio his first 2 years: 68:50 and 64:56. This year: 17:8. His 3PA/36 is up to 5.9, his first 2 seasons, 3.3 and 4.1.

The bad signs: His Reb%, Assist% Steal % and block % are all at career lows. The Reb % and Assist % are very close to last year's totals and in the early going, a couple steals or couple blocks can have a pretty big impact on steal% and block%.

The numbers suggest he's making far less mistakes on the court, has improved his shooting and everything else has remained mostly static. That's some decent year over year improvement if he keeps it up.

Last 5: 28.7 mpg, .568/.538/1.000, 11.8 points, 5.2 rebounds, 0.8 assists, 0.4 steals, 0.4 blocks. 14/26 from 3. He had 3, 6, 8, 3, and 6 attempts in those 5. Letting it fly.

I dunno, I'd just find it incredibly amusing if it's Grant Williams who turns into a .380-.400 3 point shooter on 6-7 3PA/36. Totally unforeseen outcomes are great.

Talking more about Grant than I intended to. With as much as the board loved him his rookie year, I'm surprised there isn't more of a bounce back this year. Last year must have really soured people. That and he's a very limited player but limited players can still provide considerable value if it fills a team need. He's not the 8th man I want but maybe he's the 8th man we need.
 
Last edited:

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
34,205
Melrose, MA
2. I'd be fine with this. The idea of a distribute-first PG is somewhat outdated anyway: most of the best passers now are serious scoring threats, who use that to set up any passing that happens. The 2019-2020 Celtics, featuring a score-first PG, were a really good team in hindsight. Most of the subsequent issues had to do with Kemba not being a strong scoring threat anymore. Schroder has fixed that this year, and it's looked good, as long as the team starts hitting some shots.
I disagree with this, on a couple of levels.

There's pretty wide variation in cleaning-the-glass's assists/usage. Rondo, Paul, Lowry, McConnell, Joseph at one end of the spectrum; SGA, Fox, Kemba, Maxey, Russell, Schroder, Steph, Rose at the other. I would happily take Steph, but as a general matter I don't see a case that it is better to be at the bottom of the spectrum here (as the Celtics have been for a long time). I think a younger Rondo would be an excellent fit with the current team.

The offense has worked fine with Schroder and Tatum as the volume scorers. Will it work as well if a third volume scorer (Brown) is added back into the mix? Not clear to me than it will. It didn't work earlier in the year - Schroder's best basketball has been recently, with Brown out. If the answer is that the Celtics need to have a high usage scorer at the point, that might also mean that the Celtics need to trade Brown. I'm not there (or anywhere near there) at this point.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,099
CJ Mosley with a nice 4 point missed tackle. Kind of us to make Tua not look like a bust even though he missed a wide open TD to instead throw underneath.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
5,929
Palo Alto
I disagree with this, on a couple of levels.

There's pretty wide variation in cleaning-the-glass's assists/usage. Rondo, Paul, Lowry, McConnell, Joseph at one end of the spectrum; SGA, Fox, Kemba, Maxey, Russell, Schroder, Steph, Rose at the other. I would happily take Steph, but as a general matter I don't see a case that it is better to be at the bottom of the spectrum here (as the Celtics have been for a long time). I think a younger Rondo would be an excellent fit with the current team.

The offense has worked fine with Schroder and Tatum as the volume scorers. Will it work as well if a third volume scorer (Brown) is added back into the mix? Not clear to me than it will. It didn't work earlier in the year - Schroder's best basketball has been recently, with Brown out. If the answer is that the Celtics need to have a high usage scorer at the point, that might also mean that the Celtics need to trade Brown. I'm not there (or anywhere near there) at this point.
I don't know how you can watch the team from last year and say there isn't a substantial amount of slack left for offensive load after Brown and Tatum. The team was working best when Kemba was healthy and he was certainly no distributor.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
4,636
Imaginationland
So let’s bench Tatum and tank the season then if none of this matters until we build this fictitious future where there are no player transactions. What does next years roster and this coming summers personnel moves have to do with winning games this year?

View: https://youtu.be/b5-iJUuPWis
Yeah, I understand the argument that it makes some people (Smart) unhappy and there's a risk when you back the guy whose only here for a year, but if the team is better with Schroder starting and Smart on the bench, it's on Ime and Brad to get Smart to buy in (and it's not like he's going anywhere). I feel like I'm taking crazy pills - put the lineup out on the floor that gives the team the best chance to win this year, period. We aren't a bottom feeder with 0 chance of making noise in the playoffs, and Smart isn't some super young high ceiling talent that we need to carve out extra playing time so that he hits his ceiling. This feels like Ime taking the easy way out, keeping the guys happy, and I'm not super pleased about it.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
34,205
Melrose, MA
Yeah, I understand the argument that it makes some people (Smart) unhappy and there's a risk when you back the guy whose only here for a year, but if the team is better with Schroder starting and Smart on the bench, it's on Ime and Brad to get Smart to buy in (and it's not like he's going anywhere). I feel like I'm taking crazy pills - put the lineup out on the floor that gives the team the best chance to win this year, period. We aren't a bottom feeder with 0 chance of making noise in the playoffs, and Smart isn't some super young high ceiling talent that we need to carve out extra playing time so that he hits his ceiling. This feels like Ime taking the easy way out, keeping the guys happy, and I'm not super pleased about it.
There is no reasonable case to be made that the team would be better with Smart coming off the bench.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
8,573
Kiev, Ukraine
There is no reasonable case to be made that the team would be better with Smart coming off the bench.
I mostly agree, so isn't the solution to stop with the 2-big stuff, except in certain matchups? They're already playing smaller with Brown and Rob out, and it's been fine. To the extent the lineup has had offensive problems, Brown coming back will resolve the problems.

I don't know how you can watch the team from last year and say there isn't a substantial amount of slack left for offensive load after Brown and Tatum. The team was working best when Kemba was healthy and he was certainly no distributor.
Yeah, people forget how good the 2019-2020 Celtics were offensively. Having Kemba+Tatum+Brown worked really well--the team tore it up in point differential, particularly when healthy. The whole "can't play a scorer with Brown and Tatum" thing sounds compelling in theory, and simply isn't the case in practice.
 

Euclis20

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
4,636
Imaginationland
There is no reasonable case to be made that the team would be better with Smart coming off the bench.
It's not just about Smart, it's about Schroder. I think they are pretty committed to starting 2 bigs (and I'm fine with that, as long as Kanter gets minutes which keeps the load from being too heavy on Horford/Williams), and the Celtics are 7-4 with Schroder starting, even though most of those games were without Brown. Having a legit 3rd scorer on the floor with the Jays is massive, and that isn't Smart.

*edit - Schroder is averaging 21.1 points, 5.1 assists and 4.3 rebounds and shooting 50.3% from the floor and 33.3 from 3 as a starter (that 3p% is nothing to brag about, except when compared to Smart's 27.3%). Any argument that says he should go to the bench and includes as evidence that he won't be here next year, is awful. Play to win the game.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
Ironically, Brown missing this time (and TL) might benefit the team long term. It forced Ime to play the deep bench and it forced other players to pick up the offensive load.

Plus, the time off is always a good thing, even if it is recovering from injury.
 

128

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2019
6,015
Ironically, Brown missing this time (and TL) might benefit the team long term. It forced Ime to play the deep bench and it forced other players to pick up the offensive load.

Plus, the time off is always a good thing, even if it is recovering from injury.
Time Lord's injury has let Ime see that Kanter, in certain situations, can be quite useful.

I was working last nite and missed the OKC game, but I'm watching the replay now, and I'd kind of forgotten how Kanter gobbles up rebounds.
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
2,225
Lynn
Smart has been the better facilitator so far, and is the much better defender. But Schroder is clearly the better scorer, and his driving ability has a ton value. For me it just comes down to what you’d rather have out there with the Jay’s, a distributor or a scorer.

Our bench has gotten destroyed all year, mostly due to lack of offense. I think bringing Schroder off the bench as a gunner would help, a ton.

Read into this however you want, but our net rating is 20.4 better with Smart playing as opposed to sitting, and 5.5 better when Schroder plays as opposed to sitting. Obviously there are other factors to that, but after the first few games, Smart has been excellent.

46684
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,379
Santa Monica
Smart has been the better facilitator so far, and is the much better defender. But Schroder is clearly the better scorer, and his driving ability has a ton value. For me it just comes down to what you’d rather have out there with the Jay’s, a distributor or a scorer.

Our bench has gotten destroyed all year, mostly due to lack of offense. I think bringing Schroder off the bench as a gunner would help, a ton.

Read into this however you want, but our net rating is 20.4 better with Smart playing as opposed to sitting, and 5.5 better when Schroder plays as opposed to sitting. Obviously there are other factors to that, but after the first few games, Smart has been excellent.

View attachment 46684
SSS

but your chart may be telling you something that you may not want to hear

Smart is best with JRich, Grant, Langford, Pritchard, TL
 

RorschachsMask

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
2,225
Lynn
SSS

but your chart may be telling you something that you may not want to hear

Smart is best with JRich, Grant, Langford, Pritchard, TL
Well yeah it’s very SSS, but he’s made the team much better so far this year.

Honestly, there’s nothing I don’t want to hear. I just want the team to be at their best, so I don’t care who starts. I just prefer playmaking and defense next to the Jay’s, and the scorer off the bench.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
37,218
Serious question - are there people here who think the front office and coaching staff don't already look at all possible rotation combos for optimal match-ups and trends?

I assume they use this information regularly and then coaches adjust based on availability, game context etc but maybe the Celtics wing it.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,960
New York, NY
Smart is simply much better in absolute terms than Schroder as a player. Talent should play. If Ime is going to play one small to start games, it should be Smart. If Ime wants to reshuffle the starting lineup to go small, I could see that, but we probably need to be getting more from the young smalls/wings for that to work. If Grant is the 7th/8th man in the rotation, we almost need to play bigger to keep our rotations balanced.

There’s a reason Schroder is a journeyman. He’s basically at the same level of overall NBA talent and performance as Kanter. He is an average player. He’s valuable in that he can flex into bigger minutes and an expanded offensive role. But he’s not someone who needs to start and the fact that he has been the second offensive option in Brown’s absence speaks more to the rest of our offensive options than it does to Schroder.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
35,944
Serious question - are there people here who think the front office and coaching staff don't already look at all possible rotation combos for optimal match-ups and trends?

I assume they use this information regularly and then coaches adjust based on availability, game context etc but maybe the Celtics wing it.
Serious question: We shouldn't talk about the team early in the season, because it's small sample size. We shouldn't predict the future, because aren't fortune tellers. We shouldn't even discuss anything, because the coaches and front office can never be wrong, because they have more info than we do.

Just curious, what exactly should we be discussing on a message board devoted to sports?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
Smart is simply much better in absolute terms than Schroder as a player. Talent should play. If Ime is going to play one small to start games, it should be Smart. If Ime wants to reshuffle the starting lineup to go small, I could see that, but we probably need to be getting more from the young smalls/wings for that to work. If Grant is the 7th/8th man in the rotation, we almost need to play bigger to keep our rotations balanced.

There’s a reason Schroder is a journeyman. He’s basically at the same level of overall NBA talent and performance as Kanter. He is an average player. He’s valuable in that he can flex into bigger minutes and an expanded offensive role. But he’s not someone who needs to start and the fact that he has been the second offensive option in Brown’s absence speaks more to the rest of our offensive options than it does to Schroder.

Enes Kanter? Really? That's a pretty hot DS take or you think very highly of Enes Kanter.

Anyway, DS came off the bench in OKC and was fine in the role. I don't see any reason he can't average 30 a night starting or coming off the bench. Him and Smart are both going to play, and play a lot. That's true even if the team is fully healthy. I don't know where I stand on the issue. I'm not sure I care if he's playing 30 a night and Ime is staggering the lineups correctly.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
37,218
Serious question: We shouldn't talk about the team early in the season, because it's small sample size. We shouldn't predict the future, because aren't fortune tellers. We shouldn't even discuss anything, because the coaches and front office can never be wrong, because they have more info than we do.

Just curious, what exactly should we be discussing on a message board devoted to sports?
That is not the question I asked. I don't wish to debate my posts with you. Your response has nothing to do with the question posed or the thread at all.

My question stands. There are people who are concerned that the Cs aren't seeing what they are seeing. Is that because they are ignoring information or have other considerations? Some of these posts suggest that Udoka etc aren't following some form of logic in lineups and there seems to be a concern that Ime et al may not be up for the job as a result.

In short are all these suboptimal lineups a preparation issue or is it a philosophical one? I don't know the answer but I believe its the latter. More to the point, I don't think this team has settled on a rotation just yet so I expect more messiness going forward.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
35,944
That is not the question I asked. I don't wish to debate my posts with you. Your response has nothing to do with the question posed or the thread at all.

My question stands. There are people who are concerned that the Cs aren't seeing what they are seeing. Is that because they are ignoring information or have other considerations? Some of these posts suggest that Udoka etc aren't following some form of logic in lineups and there seems to be a concern that Ime et al may not be up for the job as a result.

In short are all these suboptimal lineups a preparation issue or is it a philosophical one? I don't know the answer but I believe its the latter. More to the point, I don't think this team has settled on a rotation just yet so I expect more messiness going forward.
Fine, I'll answer your question. No, there is literally not a single person on this board that thinks the C's aren't seeing what we are seeing.

What posts, specifically, do you think suggest that the poster doesn't think the C's are using some form of logic? So, how about you answer my question? What would you propose we discuss on a message board about the Celtics, if you don't like us criticizing or questioning what we see, you don't believe in predictions, and you think because we don't have the info the front office has, all of our opinions are basically shit?

I mean, you literally drop these comments all over the place, like the one below. What's the point?

I will add that some Cs critics are almost unhinged at this point. People can discuss whatever they want but without knowing what the coaches see in practices etc as well as what is going on with the players, its hard to take these criticisms seriously. Its akin to me taking posts from this message board and assuming I have enough info to judge posters real lifestyles etc.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
In short are all these suboptimal lineups a preparation issue or is it a philosophical one?
By and large, it's a personal issue. That's more of a Stevens thing but one off season for a GM is probably a smaller sample size than 17 games for a coach.

Plus passing some of these off as SSS is an insult to small sample sizes.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
37,218
Fine, I'll answer your question. No, there is literally not a single person on this board that thinks the C's aren't seeing what we are seeing.

What posts, specifically, do you think suggest that the poster doesn't think the C's are using some form of logic? So, how about you answer my question? What would you propose we discuss on a message board about the Celtics, if you don't like us criticizing or questioning what we see, you don't believe in predictions, and you think because we don't have the info the front office has, all of our opinions are basically shit?

I mean, you literally drop these comments all over the place, like the one below. What's the point?

I will add that some Cs critics are almost unhinged at this point. People can discuss whatever they want but without knowing what the coaches see in practices etc as well as what is going on with the players, its hard to take these criticisms seriously. Its akin to me taking posts from this message board and assuming I have enough info to judge posters real lifestyles etc.
So your answer is that you have a philosophical difference with the Celtics coaching staff. Thank you - you may well know better than them. That is something worthy of discussion in my mind but again, I like when people frame positions with facts vs feelings. Aside from a few posts, we are still getting mostly the latter.

Also, I didn't report this post but pulling gamethread comments to provoke the fight you seem to be seeking is disappointing coming from you. I don't wish to engage in your fight but I have just as much right to post my comments as posters do to make emotional, petulant posts when our teams are doing poorly. Please just block or ignore me going forward.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
37,218
By and large, it's a personal issue. That's more of a Stevens thing but one off season for a GM is probably a smaller sample size than 17 games for a coach.

Plus passing some of these off as SSS is an insult to small sample sizes.
That makes sense. To me the more interesting question isn't "why aren't they playing a certain lineup together and how can they not see what we see?" Its "what are they seeing that we are not?" It would be great if the media could dig into that aspect because it might also allay some of the concerns that we collectively have about minutes etc.
 

Just a bit outside

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2011
4,914
Monument, CO
Ime seems to want to keep 2 bigs in the floor and keep Brown and Tatum at 2-3. If that us the case that forces Smart or DS out if the starting lineup when JB returns. I wonder if they are just trying to keep JT and JB fresh from not having to bang inside and we will see them used more later in the season and in the playoffs.

I agree with this approach as long as they can manage TL and Al and keep them both under 30 min a game.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
35,944
So your answer is that you have a philosophical difference with the Celtics coaching staff. Thank you - you may well know better than them. That is something worthy of discussion in my mind but again, I like when people frame positions with facts vs feelings. Aside from a few posts, we are still getting mostly the latter.

Also, I didn't report this post but pulling gamethread comments to provoke the fight you seem to be seeking is disappointing coming from you. I don't wish to engage in your fight but I have just as much right to post my comments as posters do to make emotional, petulant posts when our teams are doing poorly. Please just block or ignore me going forward.
Really? I've been ignoring this shit for quite a while, but at some point, when someone is constantly stifling discussion, while never, EVER, taking a position (besides "we don't know anything" or "it's too early"), I'm not going to keep biting my tongue. Let me be very clear, I don't give a shit if you report my posts or not. I feel like I'm on pretty good footing around here, but if you think citing a game thread post is out of line, fine. I'll just post a bunch from THIS thread. Are these disappointing too? Do you even know when you're being passive-aggressive, or is it a feature? See below:

Judging a first time NBA head coach by their first 20 games is effectively a bias. Judging a first time NBA head coach after five games is either you hated the hire and are getting confirmation you were right (like always...why don't more people listen to you and why don't you have Brad's job?) or you need to be first on the take leaderboard.




People can discuss whatever nonsense they wish. It doesn't change the logic around the discussion.

5/82=6.1%. So with 93+% of the season left to go, people here are on the record of having seen enough to know that Udoka is a bad coach and that this team has no chemistry or something like that. My only conclusion is that the Celtics have played 6.1% of their games. Clearly we have a market.

If I am coming off as offended I am failing. I am amused. I am simply pointing out that the baby was just born last week. The baby isn't pretty (come see the baby though) but it feels like people here are already writing the poor kid off.


Also, there is a significant possibility that these rosters may have quite a bit of overlap before the year is out. Does the momentous nature of this contest carry over if players change rosters?

Your gambling account is a different story and this may be the most important regular season game ever. But just for you and your fellow Cs wagerers.



There are 100's of others laying around too, I'm sure. I get it. You're the bestest fan in the world because you accept you don't know as much as the front office, and rest of us are heathens who are personally offending the teams we root for any time we question their decision making process. For the record, that isn't passive aggressive, it's right there, said out loud, in response, instead of writing things about unnamed "posters" and "people." But once again, I keep coming back to this being a message board, for discussion about these teams, in the past, in real time and for the future. If everyone just showed up now and then, and posted some variation, "You don't think the C's have thought of that" or "SSS" or "Let's see how it plays out," there isn't much of a discussion. I mean, you literally just wrote the words 'I don't want to debate my posts' on a message board, where we discuss and debate posts.

For the record, I agree with HRB and Benhogan on this. Marcus Smart at the #1 is a disaster, and will be a disaster again. I'd rather see him coming off the bench, or I'd rather see them let TL (who I love) come off the bench, manage his minutes a bit more, and let DS and Smart continue starting. But I guess I could just write "Whatever they do, they're right, because they have more info than I do."
 

Ale Xander

killed off Vin Scully
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
44,955
I think he has to go back to the bench, for the simple reason that he is not long for the team.
Furthermore, offense is better from a bench than defense.
like the move (pun intended)

he should be a good 6th man
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
37,218
Really? I've been ignoring this shit for quite a while, but at some point, when someone is constantly stifling discussion, while never, EVER, taking a position (besides "we don't know anything" or "it's too early"), I'm not going to keep biting my tongue. Let me be very clear, I don't give a shit if you report my posts or not. I feel like I'm on pretty good footing around here, but if you think citing a game thread post is out of line, fine. I'll just post a bunch from THIS thread. Are these disappointing too? Do you even know when you're being passive-aggressive, or is it a feature? See below:

Judging a first time NBA head coach by their first 20 games is effectively a bias. Judging a first time NBA head coach after five games is either you hated the hire and are getting confirmation you were right (like always...why don't more people listen to you and why don't you have Brad's job?) or you need to be first on the take leaderboard.




People can discuss whatever nonsense they wish. It doesn't change the logic around the discussion.

5/82=6.1%. So with 93+% of the season left to go, people here are on the record of having seen enough to know that Udoka is a bad coach and that this team has no chemistry or something like that. My only conclusion is that the Celtics have played 6.1% of their games. Clearly we have a market.

If I am coming off as offended I am failing. I am amused. I am simply pointing out that the baby was just born last week. The baby isn't pretty (come see the baby though) but it feels like people here are already writing the poor kid off.


Also, there is a significant possibility that these rosters may have quite a bit of overlap before the year is out. Does the momentous nature of this contest carry over if players change rosters?

Your gambling account is a different story and this may be the most important regular season game ever. But just for you and your fellow Cs wagerers.



There are 100's of others laying around too, I'm sure. I get it. You're the bestest fan in the world because you accept you don't know as much as the front office, and rest of us are heathens who are personally offending the teams we root for any time we question their decision making process. For the record, that isn't passive aggressive, it's right there, said out loud, in response, instead of writing things about unnamed "posters" and "people." But once again, I keep coming back to this being a message board, for discussion about these teams, in the past, in real time and for the future. If everyone just showed up now and then, and posted some variation, "You don't think the C's have thought of that" or "SSS" or "Let's see how it plays out," there isn't much of a discussion. I mean, you literally just wrote the words 'I don't want to debate my posts' on a message board, where we discuss and debate posts.

For the record, I agree with HRB and Benhogan on this. Marcus Smart at the #1 is a disaster, and will be a disaster again. I'd rather see him coming off the bench, or I'd rather see them let TL (who I love) come off the bench, manage his minutes a bit more, and let DS and Smart continue starting. But I guess I could just write "Whatever they do, they're right, because they have more info than I do."
This is mostly a personal attack because someone posted words you don't agree with on a message board. You literally went and pulled a bunch of posts that didn't involve you from different threads which is just uncool.

For the record, I stand by the words and there is no need for debate (btw, context matters as I was goofing with HRB). This has zero to do with the discussion at hand. I am sorry that we see the world very differently and I am sorry that you can't make me stop posting.

Back to Udoka, my view is that posters here may well know better than him about many aspects of basketball. Its just difficult to judge when these ideas are posted mostly as unsupported opinions. Others are ok talking like that and its fine. But if someone is making a very strong case for something its a lot easier to understand if they offer some form of backup.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
35,944
This is mostly a personal attack because someone posted words you don't agree with on a message board. You literally went and pulled a bunch of posts that didn't involve you from different threads which is just uncool.

For the record, I stand by the words and there is no need for debate (btw, context matters as I was goofing with HRB). This has zero to do with the discussion at hand. I am sorry that we see the world very differently and I am sorry that you can't make me stop posting.

Back to Udoka, my view is that posters here may well know better than him about many aspects of basketball. Its just difficult to judge when these ideas are posted mostly as unsupported opinions. Others are ok talking like that and its fine. But if someone is making a very strong case for something its a lot easier to understand if they offer some form of backup.
Umm, no, it's not a personal attack, I'm attacking your fucking posts. EVERY ONE OF THOSE POSTS IS FROM THIS FUCKING THREAD.

Most of those posts don't involve anyone, because you are passive aggressive, just like you were again in this post. Stop with the "posters here" or "Lots of people are saying" crap, and call them out directly. That's why we are here. You seem to believe your posts shouldn't be called out, because you don't direct them at anyone, you just are yelling them into the ether, I guess. Half the time, it's impossible to know who you are talking about, which I guess makes sense, if you think every time someone disagrees, it's a personal attack.

But yeah, I guess you get to be the "judge" about what people know or don't, or what qualifies as backup. At what point will you stop shooting down all backup as SSS or it's early in the season? Nobody here knows more than Udoka, and you know that, so once again, you're just being passive aggressive. It is impressive though. I've never asked you stop posting, I've also never reported a post (that must be your thing), because I'm not afraid to debate my own posts.

13 years since the last time the C's hoisted the Larry O'Brien. Obviously, they know more than we do, but not enough to win a championship since before my teenage son was 4 months old. I think it's fair to question their moves in real time, and discuss them on a discussion board devoted to the C's. And whether or not you think that "backup" is enough, is kind of irrelevant coming from someone who basically says nothing, except to insinuate over and over again that we all know nothing.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,965
Well yeah it’s very SSS, but he’s made the team much better so far this year.

Honestly, there’s nothing I don’t want to hear. I just want the team to be at their best, so I don’t care who starts. I just prefer playmaking and defense next to the Jay’s, and the scorer off the bench.
Tatum and Jaylen don’t need playmakers around them as they can get their own baskets with the ball and off the dribble. Having Schroder on the floor with his ability to break down the defense is that they or Schroder will have advantageous scoring opportunities as he can break down the defense which Smart isn’t capable of doing consistently.

Smart is a good player and I want him on the floor with Schroder as they complement each other well so Smart isn’t handling the ball while being asked to break down his man off the dribble.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
Smart is a good player and I want him on the floor with Schroder as they complement each other well so Smart isn’t handling the ball while being asked to break down his man off the dribble.
Which brings us back to the 2 big lineup. Josh Richardson should continue to play a lot too when Jaylen and TL are back. If Ime wants to play TL and Al around 30 minutes a game, there's little room for others when fully healthy.

edit: The team is also never fully healthy, so there's that.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,965
Which brings us back to the 2 big lineup. Josh Richardson should continue to play a lot too when Jaylen and TL are back. If Ime wants to play TL and Al around 30 minutes a game, there's little room for others when fully healthy.

edit: The team is also never fully healthy, so there's that.
I don’t like the two-big lineup with so much wing depth on this roster. This would be even if one wasn’t 35 and the other made of glass. Baffling to me.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
I don’t like the two-big lineup with so much wing depth on this roster. This would be even if one wasn’t 35 and the other made of glass. Baffling to me.
Yeah, the 2 big lineup makes sense on some level if a wing or two are injured. On this team, when fully healthy? Not really. Even if he wants to stick to a tight rotation, just play JRich closer to 30 minutes a game instead of 25.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
24,908
Ime seems to want to keep 2 bigs in the floor and keep Brown and Tatum at 2-3. If that us the case that forces Smart or DS out if the starting lineup when JB returns. I wonder if they are just trying to keep JT and JB fresh from not having to bang inside and we will see them used more later in the season and in the playoffs.

I agree with this approach as long as they can manage TL and Al and keep them both under 30 min a game.
It would be great if someone asked Ime this question - but then again, I'm not sure he'd answer.

I don't know if Ime is committed to having 2 bigs on the floor at the same time - i.e., he plays lineups with RL and JR at the "3" and "4" often - as much as Ime feels like TL, Al, JT, JB, and Marcus is the best 5 he can put out there. And if I had to guess right now - also assuming the Cs stay health - i would guess that this lineup would have the most minutes in the playoffs as it can match up against a lot of different teams.

If that is true, Ime has got to play these guys together to maximize their success.

I'm not sure this is about a philosophy of basketball as much as a talent/fit evaluation.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
It would be great if someone asked Ime this question - but then again, I'm not sure he'd answer.

I don't know if Ime is committed to having 2 bigs on the floor at the same time - i.e., he plays lineups with RL and JR at the "3" and "4" often - as much as Ime feels like TL, Al, JT, JB, and Marcus is the best 5 he can put out there. And if I had to guess right now - also assuming the Cs stay health - i would guess that this lineup would have the most minutes in the playoffs as it can match up against a lot of different teams.

If that is true, Ime has got to play these guys together to maximize their success.

I'm not sure this is about a philosophy of basketball as much as a talent/fit evaluation.
Even if it is the optimal lineup, you don't need to rely on it heavily during the regular season. Save most of it for the playoffs. You don't really need to maximize the regular season, just get a top 6 seed, preferably 4.

If the optimal lineup leads to injury or wear & tear that leads to ineffective play, it's not really the optimal lineup over an 82 game season. 16-26 games? It's the playoffs, go for it.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
37,218
I am with wbcd. Two big lineup usage predates Udoka and the people covering the team have made several references to it. Yet its back again and as some writers noted in preseason, the two big lineup used in Philly when Ime was there (along with Horford) wasn't a success either.

It would be nice if we got more color on their thinking but they don't see value in sharing that info or its out there and I missed it. The press should be asking about it if they aren't.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,965
Even if it is the optimal lineup, you don't need to rely on it heavily during the regular season. Save most of it for the playoffs. You don't really need to maximize the regular season, just get a top 6 seed, preferably 4.

If the optimal lineup leads to injury or wear & tear that leads to ineffective play, it's not really the optimal lineup over an 82 game season. 16-26 games? It's the playoffs, go for it.
If Udoka felt the two-big was his optimal lineup then why doesn’t he hardly even play it down the stretch of close games when both were available?
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
If Udoka felt the two-big was his optimal lineup then why doesn’t he hardly even play it down the stretch of close games when both were available?
I said if. For the sake of the argument, assume it's true. It doesn't mean he should be relying on it heavily during the early going of the regular season.

I'm personally not a big fan of the 2 big lineup.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
22,965
I said if. For the sake of the argument, assume it's true. It doesn't mean he should be relying on it heavily during the early going of the regular season.

I'm personally not a big fan of the 2 big lineup.
No my point was that it’s clear he doesn’t feel that it is his optimal lineup which makes the start of the game rotation all the more baffling to me.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
18,697
No my point was that it’s clear he doesn’t feel that it is his optimal lineup which makes the start of the game rotation all the more baffling to me.
Yeah, that's fair. Maybe he wants to start TL but feels having Al come off the bench is disrespectful? I really don't get a lot of his decisions re: usage and rotations.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
13,379
Santa Monica
No my point was that it’s clear he doesn’t feel that it is his optimal lineup which makes the start of the game rotation all the more baffling to me.
late/close has been only one of TL or Horford, so I also find starting 2BIGZ to be baffling

Here is my guess: maybe its out of respect to Horford (what Crespo said)? and they promised TL he would start so he has a chance of contract bonuses?

Another reason to start Schroder is Tatum's historically slow scoring starts. That was one of the things early Kemba was so good at, getting points in the first half while Tatum warmed up.
 

JakeRae

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
6,960
New York, NY
Enes Kanter? Really? That's a pretty hot DS take or you think very highly of Enes Kanter.

Anyway, DS came off the bench in OKC and was fine in the role. I don't see any reason he can't average 30 a night starting or coming off the bench. Him and Smart are both going to play, and play a lot. That's true even if the team is fully healthy. I don't know where I stand on the issue. I'm not sure I care if he's playing 30 a night and Ime is staggering the lineups correctly.
Schroder is being significantly overrated based on his volume scoring ability when his offense is very average overall. His last four seasons, counting this year, RAPTOR has him at -0.8, +1.4, -0.2, and -0.4. His 19/20 season stands out because his defense rated much better when playing with Chris Paul. That’s not a quirk of RAPTOR. LEBRON rates him, excluding this year where no ratings are available, at -0.68, 0.09, -0.51. Again, the difference is mostly defense when he was in OKC, although a smaller difference, and LEBRON values his offense a bit more than RAPTOR does.

Kanter plays less, so his ratings should be discounted accordingly, but there’s also no indication he cannot maintain his performance with more minutes. Over those same time spans RAPTOR rates him 0, +2.0, -0.3, -5.7. LEBRON rates him +0.45, -0.13, +2.33.

I think Kanter is worse than his advanced metrics indicate because he becomes a liability in the playoffs, but we’re not talking about playoffs right now, and Kanter is an average regular season center. Schroder is an average point guard who doesn’t have Kanter’s matchup and playoff problems. Both are flawed but useful players. Neither is a player you should want to be starting. And, to cut off criticisms, I am citing advanced metrics not as an ending point, but because they accord in this instance with what I have seen watching these players. Schroder is a mediocre defender, a poor shooter, and turns the ball over too much. He does score and penetrate, and he’s not selfish so much as lacking in vision.

By way of contrast, Smart, who is also a poor shooter and turns the ball over too much, has very good vision and is an improving passer. He is also an excellent defender, but obviously a bad scorer. RAPTOR rates him (same time span) at +2.4, +2.9, +0.9, +4.3. He’s a solidly above average offensive player and very good defensively except last year. LEBRON likes him less, but agrees that he’s clearly better than Schroder, with +0.52, +1.00, +0.29 ratings. This Board, and fans generally, consistently mistake Smart’s poor shooting for being a poor offensive player, but that isn’t accurate. He makes up for his poor shooting with very good passing, a very good understanding of positional offense, and by generally recognizing his weaknesses and not taking too many shots.