Celtics in 18-19

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,467
Right--I wasn't clear. I meant that while I could see him functioning well as a #2 to Kyrie, it has to be as #2, not #3. He clearly plays much better when he's handling the ball and playing in rhythm. Those 1/3 PnRs he and Kyrie did before the 2017 season had him fully engaged and looking great.
Oh I totally agree, which is why I said that he'd be ideal for teams like Indiana and Utah that clearly need a Paul George type to put next to their scoring guards. As part of a package to land Davis, it's not a bad move.
 

bosox79

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
9,799
Other 3rd option guys like Allen, Bosh, Love, Thompson etc. still managed to get 13-17 shots / game. Gordon is currently around 9 coming off the bench. He peaked around 16 his last year in Utah. Right now, it's not much of an issue because he's still feeling his way through his injury but if he makes a full or near full recovery, I can't imagine he'll be very happy for long getting so few shots / game.

Like you have mentioned, this problem only gets worse if the AD chase is successful.
It depends who they would move in an AD trade and who they would lose to FA. There are 5 players in NO averaging over 11 shots per game in large part because those are the only 5 guys shooting the ball. The 6th averages less than 6. In Boston, you have 5 players averaging over 10 shots per game, another 2 averaging 8 and 9, and Smart at 6.

If they lose Rozier, Morris and Brown while gaining AD, there is more than enough shots to go around. A team can never have too many guys who can score, but right now the Celtics have too many guys who can score. The 80 FGA going to 7 guys would now be going to 5. Add a couple 3 and D players who are content getting 3-4 shots a night, and the problem is solved.

Pretty much any trade for AD will open up more shots for Hayward since the roster will be depleted. Hell, a trade for AD could mean only 3 returning rotation players. Kyrie, Hayward and one of Horford/Smart/Tatum/Brown.

Even with no trade, there should be more shots to go around next year with Rozier, Morris, Baynes and Theis up for FA. I have a feeling we lose all 4. Given our cap situation, those 4 draft picks in 2019 may actually replace our bench.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,033
It depends who they would move in an AD trade and who they would lose to FA. There are 5 players in NO averaging over 11 shots per game in large part because those are the only 5 guys shooting the ball. The 6th averages less than 6. In Boston, you have 5 players averaging over 10 shots per game, another 2 averaging 8 and 9, and Smart at 6.

If they lose Rozier, Morris and Brown while gaining AD, there is more than enough shots to go around. A team can never have too many guys who can score, but right now the Celtics have too many guys who can score. The 80 FGA going to 7 guys would now be going to 5. Add a couple 3 and D players who are content getting 3-4 shots a night, and the problem is solved.

Pretty much any trade for AD will open up more shots for Hayward since the roster will be depleted. Hell, a trade for AD could mean only 3 returning rotation players. Kyrie, Hayward and one of Horford/Smart/Tatum/Brown.

Even with no trade, there should be more shots to go around next year with Rozier, Morris, Baynes and Theis up for FA. I have a feeling we lose all 4. Given our cap situation, those 4 draft picks in 2019 may actually replace our bench.
This is a fair point but I also think it’s more than just a matter of finding shots. Hayward’s skill set is maximized with the ball in his hands. I don’t think he’s best suited for that 3rd star role when you have AD/Kyrie dominating the ball (in this hypothetical scenario).
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
Your post kinda proves the point I was trying to make. Last night Kyrie WASN'T there taking his 18 FGA while dominating the ball. There was much greater movement, one less mouth to feed (and the biggest one at that), and what do ya know......Hayward and Jaylen thrived! As I've harped on from the beginning.....it isn't the number of shots it is the rhythm and flow of the shots that make them high quality. In those other games Jaylen scored well with Kyrie out there we saw Hayward an afterthought and/or out of sync as there is only one ball to go around so "hero ball" becomes a problem.
I was more focused on the full December sample than the one game sample. Kyrie played in December. So it does not prove your point. It doesn't disprove it, but it's not a mark in your favor.

The ball movement is Kyrie specific and doesn't have much to do with the plethora of wings. There's much less ball movement with him on the court because he can break down a defense on his own and they don't need as many passes for an open look. Their offensive rating is also much stronger with Kyrie. Jaylen played well with Kyrie, Tatum and Al on the court last year.

Raptors got demolished in SA tonight. Dubs lost at home to Rockets w/o Paul or Gordon. The only actual bad Celtics loss in the past month was to the Pistons who have been sinking like a stone. The NBA is just a lot more competitive this year.

I was hoping the Celtics would separate themselves from the pack but they haven't. They're in the mix with probably 5 other teams. However, the Bucks, Raptors, and Thunder have likely peaked. Not saying their peak isn't enough but it’s hard to see any of them improving dramatically from here. We all know Dubs and to an extent the Rockets can hit another level. By contrast the Celtics have multiple high upside players with significant room for growth this year: Tatum, Brown, and Hayward. It’s realistic they’re the best in the East and competitive with the winner of the west come May.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
Another thing I’ve been thinking about is how much of a difference really intense energy can make, particularly on defense. Anybody who watched the western conference finals last year knows what I’m talking about. The Rockets hit another level of intensity in several of their games and nearly beat a clearly superior team with pure effort. (As an aside, I was really hoping we’d see that level from the young, energetic Celtics come game 7 vs the Cavs but they looked unchanged.). We’ve seen this intensity frequently from the Celtics when they’re behind in the 4th quarter. Teams don’t do it all game because they’re physically unable.

In the playoffs the Celtics can field a full rotation of Kyrie, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Hayward, Morris, Horford, Rozier, and Baynes with nobody else needing to play for a minute. Kyrie and Al are significantly better than their backups, so set them aside, but there’s essentially 5 guys for the other 3 spots that are very even in ability. In the event they’re all playing well they each can play the fullest 29 minutes/game their bodies will allow against opponents playing 38 mins a game. If Brad can get them to buy in this could be something we really haven’t seen. Teams like the Raptors have tried but their depth is full of players who are ultimately inferior vs a top level starting unit. The Celtics could potentially reach another level by rotating very high caliber players and making it extremely difficult for an opponent with a lighter rotation to match their intensity for a game and a series.
 
Last edited:

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
I see now you responded here to the point I just made above.

Agreed.....but whoever the next scorer is it eliminates the other wings from getting touches and in flow. The other night Jaylen had 30 which is awesome.....but it also resulted in Hayward being out of whack and posting a goose egg. That is great for Jaylen but doesn't do much for the team as Hayward's performance offset Jaylen's and we lost to the Spurs.
You are asserting causation where there is none. Hayward didn't know Jaylen was going to score 30 points when he missed his first few shots. He didn't come out poorly because it was pre-determined that it was someone else's night. And after going 0-6, he didn't blame Jaylen, he got in the gym early the next morning and worked on his shot. And then Jaylen didn't play poorly the following night because Hayward was destined for greatness. He only got 7 shots but he made the most of them, efficiently scoring 10 points.

You're right that the number of shots each player can take is essentially zero-sum. But where is the evidence that guys shoot better in minutes 30-35 after they've already taken many shots? Is there any evidence at all that more shooting opportunities improves shooting percentage? This is some basic stuff. You're asserting a relationship that's somewhat akin to pitcher control over BABIP and you're doing so without any real evidence. Has anyone seen a study that looks at individuals and measures their FG% when they take their first 5 / 6th-10th / 11th-15th / 16th-20th / 20+ shots in a game over the course of a couple years? Is there some sort of curve or is the whole thing just flat?

If anything, when they're playing well this team should be able to shoot better because rarely should they have to play hero ball. In 2007-12 Paul Pierce, KG, and Ray Allen all saw a reduction in shots per game and all matched or posted their career mark in TS% and had a run of TS% that was well above their preceding years and total career marks.

Yes, they're different players in different stages of their careers who fit together differently but the point stands. You have no evidence to support your conclusion. Jaylen is taking 1 less shot per game than last year at the same usage. That maybe causing a mental thing with role satisfaction but it's not a problem they can't overcome by getting him to buy in, which he seems to be doing. Hayward has seen a large reduction but the physical problems are probably the bigger driver. Once those sort themselves out we should know more.

The great thing about playing tougher defense and scoring more efficiently in fewer minutes is they'll still end up with nice point totals and flashy slash lines that will make GMs drool. They'll also win more games, be more famous, and get paid more.
 

RorschachsMask

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2011
477
32
Lynn
Honest question: Are the Celtics better without Kyrie?
Nah i don't think so, they beat a garbage Wolves team without 3 of their 5 best players and a Mavs team that has won like 3 road games on the year.

They've been a MUCH better team with Kyrie on the court this year, his impact stats have jumped into elite territory as well.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
21,516
Here
Honest question: Are the Celtics better without Kyrie?
No, but I think there’s a real question as to whether there are too many players eating up significant minutes, such that is messes with rotations/player expectations and hurts the team. Too many cooks in the kitchen, in other words. I’d like to see what this team looked like for a month without Rozier, most notably.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,585
Honest question: Are the Celtics better without Kyrie?
I honestly don’t think they are worse with this core group. 17-9 reg season the past two years and two playoff series wins.

To get over the top however you need elite scorers to take over games against playoff defense intensity. So maybe not worse without Kyrie but he’s necessary for us to reach our ultimate goal.

C’s started 10-10 and are 13-5 since. That’s a 59-win pace in their past 18 games.
1-4 versus playoff teams during this soft stretch of the schedule too. We do take care of business against lottery teams which shows focus and a well prepared team.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,585
I think its an interesting question and it begs another one - if the C's could package Irving plus other pieces for Davis before the deadline would they do it (assuming they get some assurances he will sign an extension)?
The Pelicans would also need assurance from Kyrie that he’d sign his deal with them which wouldn’t appear likely.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
27,984
www.kittens.com
The Pelicans would also need assurance from Kyrie that he’d sign his deal with them which wouldn’t appear likely.
A deal like this is extremely unlikely in-season even considering the assurances each side would be seeking. I am just wondering whether Ainge would pull the trigger. wbcd is right in that the C's need Kyrie's ability to create offense in the playoffs but, on the other hand, I could see Ainge rolling the dice that he and Stevens could figure that out with Davis and others carrying more of the load. This scenario might make many here shudder because it would likely mean that Rozier would be given more run as a result.

Again, I don't see this happening at all. However if the C's could nab Davis now for something like Kyrie, Brown and other non-Tatum pieces, I would think on it for sure.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,033
The Pelicans would also need assurance from Kyrie that he’d sign his deal with them which wouldn’t appear likely.
And doubt a Kyrie-less Celtics team interests AD much. Of course, you could make it a 3 way deal where Kyrie goes to the team that he’d be interested in signing with like the Knicks.

BOS: AD

NO: SAC pick / 2019 Knicks unprotected / Knox / Filler

NY: Kyrie

Something like that. Obviously a minuscule chance of something like this happening before the summer.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
Honest question: Are the Celtics better without Kyrie?
I get it. I have asked myself this question more than once. However...

Looking at net ratings for different Celtics lineups (min 200 mins), Kyrie is in...
-7 of the top 8 three man lineups including top 3
-4 of the top 8 two man lineups including #1 overall
-all the top 5 four man lineups (had to drop it to 100 mins for lineups without Kyrie)

His individual +/- is tops on the Celtics and near top of the NBA. So it sure doesn’t seem like it.
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
1,384
55
Trade musings:

That’s where the Boston Celtics come in. Not only do they have a stockpile of trade picks they can offer, they could also dangle Terry Rozier. A Nikola Vucevic for Terry Rozier trade makes all the sense in the world for both teams. The Celtics get their big man and the Magic get a starting point guard who could flourish in Orlando.
I'd do it in a heartbeat. Don't think Orlando would without a draft pick or two, even with Vucevic's expiring contract. Of course if Danny really has his sights set on AD or bust, it probably wouldn't happen.

I know Danny has publicly said he's not looking to make a trade. But I think -- as I'm sure every other GM in the league does -- that he's always willing to listen, and will swing into action if he thinks the deal is good.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,124
Trade musings:



I'd do it in a heartbeat. Don't think Orlando would without a draft pick or two, even with Vucevic's expiring contract. Of course if Danny really has his sights set on AD or bust, it probably wouldn't happen.

I know Danny has publicly said he's not looking to make a trade. But I think -- as I'm sure every other GM in the league does -- that he's always willing to listen, and will swing into action if he thinks the deal is good.
Would this really impact AD? Both guys are FA after this year, couldn’t they just use Vucevic as a sign & trade they same way they would with Rozier?
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,171
I hear all you guys on Kyrie. He's obviously an insanely good and talented player. And he's THE GUY that I want with the ball late in a playoff game. But it just seems like the other guys - and the team as a whole - flourish without him. Better ball movement, better distribution, better flow, better defense...they are just a better TEAM without him, as crazy as that sounds. And yet you're all right - when it's crunch time and you need a guy that can get a bucket by himself, there are few people on planet earth that are Kyrie's equivalent. He's far and away the best on the Celtics at THAT.

It's just so strange - I don't know that I've ever seen this kind of situation before. Maybe the solution is just to play him a lot lot less during the regular season (like...20-23 min a game kind of crazy). It will keep him fresh for the playoffs, and the team will function better during regular season games, but you save Kyrie's minutes for the big ones down the stretches of these games and for the playoffs?
 

CreedBratton

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2009
3,033
I think its an interesting question and it begs another one - if the C's could package Irving plus other pieces for Davis before the deadline would they do it (assuming they get some assurances he will sign an extension)?
Celtics can’t trade for Davis during the season. Only in the summer because you can’t have two super max or max eligible guys on your team at once. There’s some rule I forget the name so they would have to wait no matter what.
 

Light-Tower-Power

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 14, 2013
8,005
Celtics can’t trade for Davis during the season. Only in the summer because you can’t have two super max or max eligible guys on your team at once. There’s some rule I forget the name so they would have to wait no matter what.
Rose rule. They could trade for Davis is Kyrie was included in the trade.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
I hear all you guys on Kyrie. He's obviously an insanely good and talented player. And he's THE GUY that I want with the ball late in a playoff game. But it just seems like the other guys - and the team as a whole - flourish without him. Better ball movement, better distribution, better flow, better defense...they are just a better TEAM without him, as crazy as that sounds. And yet you're all right - when it's crunch time and you need a guy that can get a bucket by himself, there are few people on planet earth that are Kyrie's equivalent. He's far and away the best on the Celtics at THAT.

It's just so strange - I don't know that I've ever seen this kind of situation before. Maybe the solution is just to play him a lot lot less during the regular season (like...20-23 min a game kind of crazy). It will keep him fresh for the playoffs, and the team will function better during regular season games, but you save Kyrie's minutes for the big ones down the stretches of these games and for the playoffs?
It doesn’t seem like you did hear several of us. They’re better offensively, defensively, and a better TEAM with him ON the court.

More passing doesn’t equal better team. With Kyrie they pass less and score more.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,842
Lisbon, PT
It doesn’t seem like you did hear several of us. They’re better offensively, defensively, and a better TEAM with him ON the court.

More passing doesn’t equal better team. With Kyrie they pass less and score more.
The main remaining question is to how they can get back to being a positive net rating team when Kyrie is off the floor (which they were last year, even prior to his injury). Hayward and Brown getting comfortable will do a lot for that, especially if one or both of them can play more with the starters, and get Morris back into bench units. That in turn would let Rozier be a primary guy in more of his minutes, which clearly helps him.

I'm optimistic that the "unsolvable" issue will turn out, through no fault of his own, to just be Rozier, and I'm still not sure how they handle that this season.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,842
Lisbon, PT
The main remaining question is to how they can get back to being a positive net rating team when Kyrie is off the floor (which they were last year, even prior to his injury). Hayward and Brown getting comfortable will do a lot for that, especially if one or both of them can play more with the starters, and get Morris back into bench units. That in turn would let Rozier be a primary guy in more of his minutes, which clearly helps him.

I'm optimistic that the "unsolvable" issue will turn out, through no fault of his own, to just be Rozier, and I'm still not sure how they handle that this season.
The other clear way to clean up the fit issues. at least for this year, is for Tatum to go back into more of the spot-up/drive-closeouts role he had last year. His defense keeps improving (you'll seem on guards a lot now), so this is very realistic. Brown and Hayward need the ball in their hands to have full impact more than Tatum does, and this also helps counteract Tatum's ball-stopping tendencies.

Obviously in the long-run, Tatum needs to develop as a playmaker, but he's only 20 and less than 1.5 years into his career, so I'd be fine having him be the guy who initiates fewer actions.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,691
50
around the way
The other clear way to clean up the fit issues. at least for this year, is for Tatum to go back into more of the spot-up/drive-closeouts role he had last year. His defense keeps improving (you'll seem on guards a lot now), so this is very realistic. Brown and Hayward need the ball in their hands to have full impact more than Tatum does, and this also helps counteract Tatum's ball-stopping tendencies.

Obviously in the long-run, Tatum needs to develop as a playmaker, but he's only 20 and less than 1.5 years into his career, so I'd be fine having him be the guy who initiates fewer actions.
He would be a better player if he initiated fewer actions. It's great that he can create his shot any time that he wants, but those aren't usually the best shots.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,842
Lisbon, PT
He would be a better player if he initiated fewer actions. It's great that he can create his shot any time that he wants, but those aren't usually the best shots.
Right, his shot selection is still pretty poor, but the key point is that he can still have a really positive impact as a 3rd/4th option, which isn't as true for Hayward/Rozier/Brown. I doubt this is lost on Brad--most of Tatum's 11 3s last night came out of other guys setting him up, which might be a good blueprint once Kyrie returns.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,691
50
around the way
Right, his shot selection is still pretty poor, but the key point is that he can still have a really positive impact as a 3rd/4th option, which isn't as true for Hayward/Rozier/Brown. I doubt this is lost on Brad--most of Tatum's 11 3s last night came out of other guys setting him up, which might be a good blueprint once Kyrie returns.
Yep. Hope you're right.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
17,239
Newton
Kyrie and now Morris kinda have carte blanche, and for good reason. They're creating lots of good looks without needing ball swing to do it.
I suppose that means the best lineup, if Hayward gets healthy, ends up being Kyrie, Hayward, Tatum, Morris, Horford, just because of Tatum's ability to spot-up and play D.
I agree with this but I’m trying to figure out what the best lineup is now – with Hayward maybe not able to really be that third option yet. Is it:

Kyrie
Morris
Horford
Smart
Tatum

With the second unit being:

Rozier
Hayward
Jaylen
Theis
Semi/Yabu

Does that work? Second unit spreads the ball around like we’ve seen the last few nights and the first unit lets Kyrie and Morris do their thing. Only question is whether Tatum’s being optimized in that lineup.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,842
Lisbon, PT
I agree with this but I’m trying to figure out what the best lineup is now – with Hayward maybe not able to really be that third option yet. Is it:

Kyrie
Morris
Horford
Smart
Tatum

With the second unit being:

Rozier
Hayward
Jaylen
Theis
Semi/Yabu

Does that work? Second unit spreads the ball around like we’ve seen the last few nights and the first unit lets Kyrie and Morris do their thing. Only question is whether Tatum’s being optimized in that lineup.
I think they're going to try Kyrie/Smart/Tatum/Hayward/Horford soon, with Hayward as the #2 option. The Kyrie/Hayward dance of the 2017 preseason was for real, and working back to that almost has to be a primary goal for Brad.

That lets Rozier and Brown create more offense in the second unit, with Morris working off them. The only reason they wouldn't do that is if they think Rozier and Brown just can't find the passes necessary.

Smart on the first unit is here to stay imo, especially if he can keep defenses honest at around 33% from 3. He's a perfect complementary player if that shot is falling even a bit.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,842
Lisbon, PT
To be clear re Jaylen: I think he'll stay on the 2nd unit for awhile because he's playing well. He's improving faster in shot creation and playmaking than Tatum, which is a surprise after his start to the year, so they'll want to let him feature that and develop it as much as possible.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,691
50
around the way
Nobody will have an eye for moving the ball on that second unit. If both Hayward and Smart are seeing the bulk of the minutes with the starters, we will see huge stretches of second unit scoring ineptitude. Maybe that's ok, if their defense makes up for it like last year. But it's a conscious decision being made to move all of the passers to the first unit.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,842
Lisbon, PT
Nobody will have an eye for moving the ball on that second unit. If both Hayward and Smart are seeing the bulk of the minutes with the starters, we will see huge stretches of second unit scoring ineptitude. Maybe that's ok, if their defense makes up for it like last year. But it's a conscious decision being made to move all of the passers to the first unit.
Yeah, I don't even really disagree. I guess that would just mean Hayward keeps coming off the bench, but starts closing lots of games, replacing Morris in the final few minutes.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,691
50
around the way
Yeah, I don't even really disagree. I guess that would just mean Hayward keeps coming off the bench, but starts closing lots of games, replacing Morris in the final few minutes.
I had a longer post that implied a closing lineup, but frankly couldn't decide on that. I do trust Brad on this, as he knows these guys' personalities and desires and capabilities.

Anecdotal warning: Rozier seems to be more aware of the rest of the floor in the last 10-15 games than he did before. Maybe Brad thinks that enough reps and improved vision on Rozier's part may be enough. And TL coming back wouldn't hurt that unit either--matchup dependent of course--as his vision is better than expected. Who knows.

With healthy TL, Theis, and Ojeleye getting minutes there, the defense will be pretty damn solid. Morris can create, as can Rozier generally. Won't necessarily be a movement-based offense, but that's fine. It wasn't really last year either, when the second unit was playing.

Should be fun to watch it unfold.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,842
Lisbon, PT
I had a longer post that implied a closing lineup, but frankly couldn't decide on that. I do trust Brad on this, as he knows these guys' personalities and desires and capabilities.

Anecdotal warning: Rozier seems to be more aware of the rest of the floor in the last 10-15 games than he did before. Maybe Brad thinks that enough reps and improved vision on Rozier's part may be enough. And TL coming back wouldn't hurt that unit either--matchup dependent of course--as his vision is better than expected. Who knows.

With healthy TL, Theis, and Ojeleye getting minutes there, the defense will be pretty damn solid. Morris can create, as can Rozier generally. Won't necessarily be a movement-based offense, but that's fine. It wasn't really last year either, when the second unit was playing.

Should be fun to watch it unfold.
They also have clearly found something with the basic actions that get Brown the ball, on the move, in the middle of the floor.
 

bowiac

I've been living a lie.
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,124
35
New York, NY
I hear all you guys on Kyrie. He's obviously an insanely good and talented player. And he's THE GUY that I want with the ball late in a playoff game. But it just seems like the other guys - and the team as a whole - flourish without him.
I'm on record as a pretty big Kyrie doubter, but the numbers are pretty clear the team is better when he's on the court (+7 on/off this year).
 

Big John

lurker
Dec 9, 2016
1,520
73
Kyrie has been better lately. His assists are up and he's working harder on defense, so that number does not surprise me. I think he realizes that in order for the team to win, it can't be all about him.

The last two games they won without him were against second tier teams and they weren't close.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,467
I'd do it in a heartbeat. Don't think Orlando would without a draft pick or two, even with Vucevic's expiring contract. Of course if Danny really has his sights set on AD or bust, it probably wouldn't happen.

I know Danny has publicly said he's not looking to make a trade. But I think -- as I'm sure every other GM in the league does -- that he's always willing to listen, and will swing into action if he thinks the deal is good.
Vucevic doesn’t make a lot of sense for Boston. They don’t need another backup C.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,691
50
around the way
Vucevic doesn’t make a lot of sense for Boston. They don’t need another backup C.
They could use a backup center taller than 6'9" now, with TL and AB sidelined. But that won't last forever, and weakening the guard position for a handful of games from Vucevic would be stupid. But if he were on the street, I'd bring him in, assuming that it wasn't a cap/tax problem.
 

amarshal2

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2005
4,591
I think they're going to try Kyrie/Smart/Tatum/Hayward/Horford soon, with Hayward as the #2 option. The Kyrie/Hayward dance of the 2017 preseason was for real, and working back to that almost has to be a primary goal for Brad.

That lets Rozier and Brown create more offense in the second unit, with Morris working off them. The only reason they wouldn't do that is if they think Rozier and Brown just can't find the passes necessary.

Smart on the first unit is here to stay imo, especially if he can keep defenses honest at around 33% from 3. He's a perfect complementary player if that shot is falling even a bit.
I agree with most everything you’ve written. However I think this — Hayward into starting unit for Morris — is questionable. If they do that they need Tatum to accept the Morris role of primarily a spot up shooter and occasional good matchup winner. Right now Morris is absolutely perfect in the starting unit. He’s unbelievably efficient* (.636 TS!) and playing strong defense.

If you want to talk about getting Hayward into the starting lineup I think you need to talk Smart or Tatum going to the bench. I could see Smart as soon as he cools off from 3 (if he does) or Tatum as a way to let him work on his game the way he wants with/against the second unit. But today I think both are playing better so I wouldn’t touch it.

Who ever would’ve thought Marcus Morris...MARCUS MORRIS...would be the most efficient scorer on the 2018/19 Celtics.
 
Last edited:

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,321
To be clear re Jaylen: I think he'll stay on the 2nd unit for awhile because he's playing well. He's improving faster in shot creation and playmaking than Tatum, which is a surprise after his start to the year, so they'll want to let him feature that and develop it as much as possible.
If I were Czar for a game and didn't have to worry about egos, I'd move JB into the starting unit and let Tatum play with GH. Tatum's "moves" are going to work better against second unit defenders and there is without a doubt that JB is a better defender.

I don't think this is going to happen because JT appears to have read every single one his press clippings since last March, but on a game to game basis, JT's pounding the rock while he tries to set up his guy for a contested seventeen foot fadeway, step-back, or step-aside jumper really hurts the offensive flow IMHO.
 

mcpickl

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2007
3,071
Trade musings:



I'd do it in a heartbeat. Don't think Orlando would without a draft pick or two, even with Vucevic's expiring contract. Of course if Danny really has his sights set on AD or bust, it probably wouldn't happen.

I know Danny has publicly said he's not looking to make a trade. But I think -- as I'm sure every other GM in the league does -- that he's always willing to listen, and will swing into action if he thinks the deal is good.
How would this even work?

Vucevic makes almost 10M more than Rozier.

You'd have to include at least one other rotation player to make it work under the salary cap.

This doesn't make much sense.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
30,167
43
Honest question: Are the Celtics better without Kyrie?
No, not even a little bit.

Is Rozier better without Kyrie? Yes.

Which means two things. Brad needs to stop playing Kyrie and Rozier at the same time, and/or Danny needs to get rid of Rozier, because clearly he's not buying into his role.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
7,255
Rozier is still useful for those days when Kyrie doesn't play. Just based on Kyrie's history, and the Celtics openly stated desire to manage their starters wear and tear, we can probably expect Kyrie to sit for between 5 and 10 of the remaining games. Maybe they can afford to weaken this aspect if they strengthen somewhere else (e.g., improve upon the Theis roster spot), but I don't see Ainge just dumping Rozier for a late 2nd in February.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,842
Lisbon, PT
Rozier is still useful for those days when Kyrie doesn't play. Just based on Kyrie's history, and the Celtics openly stated desire to manage their starters wear and tear, we can probably expect Kyrie to sit for between 5 and 10 of the remaining games. Maybe they can afford to weaken this aspect if they strengthen somewhere else (e.g., improve upon the Theis roster spot), but I don't see Ainge just dumping Rozier for a late 2nd in February.
I don't think they see Theis's spot as an area that needs improvement. They see him as a guy who plays well against non-post centers and who got put into bad spots with Baynes and TL both sidelined at the same time. Brad basically came out and said this explicitly after Theis played well vs. Dallas.

Rozier has bought into his role fine after his early discontent. It's just a shitty role that doesn't maximize his strengths.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,826
If the Cs had a steady vet bench PG in Rozier's spot, the bench would have been a lot more of an asset. If a team has Hayward and Brown coming off the pine, a max guy and a top three pick, they need to eat, and the PG that is on the court with them needs to understand that.

I'm a big Rozier fan, and loved his run last season, but he's been a problem this season. Besides being very unsettled at the offensive end, he consistently lapses on defense in key moments. As mentioned above, he's been better the last dozen games or so, but if he can't be consistent, he should be moved for a steadier hand. It will be difficult, because you can't match his salary with most available veterans.

If he is moved, even for someone at another position, they could move Brown back to starting SG, and let Smart anchor the bench as their PG. I don't think Wanamaker is a long term answer there, but in glimpses this season we've seen the second unit thrive with a more traditional PG than Rozier.

Another option is to use Hayward exclusively at point forward with the second unit. He's a great drive and dish creator, although he would be passing to sub-optimal threeball shooters in Rozier and Brown. I'm guessing Brad will continue to work with Rozier to shoehorn him into the role the team needs from him.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,691
50
around the way
I think Smart is putting to rest any notion that he shouldn't be in the starting lineup.
I agree. Sometimes shit works because it just works.

I get the desire to move Hayward back into the starting lineup, especially as he regains his old self somewhat. But the starters are playing better with Morris and Smart. Hayward, Brown, Rozier, and a couple of defense first guys can be a decent second unit, with Hayward kind of supplementing Rozier's distribution weaknesses. The bench lineup won't always be gold, but maximizing the starters has a lot of benefit. I wouldn't change too much until they have a reason to.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,826
I agree. Sometimes shit works because it just works.

I get the desire to move Hayward back into the starting lineup, especially as he regains his old self somewhat. But the starters are playing better with Morris and Smart. Hayward, Brown, Rozier, and a couple of defense first guys can be a decent second unit, with Hayward kind of supplementing Rozier's distribution weaknesses. The bench lineup won't always be gold, but maximizing the starters has a lot of benefit. I wouldn't change too much until they have a reason to.

Hayward, Brown, Rozier and a couple of defense first guys should be GREAT. That it hasn't has been an issue. The starters can get a first quarter lead every game, but if this unit pisses it away, it puts a lot more stress on the starters to lock up a lead a second time to start the second half, and then close out, or overcome a lead, in the fourth.