Celtics in 18-19
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I have trouble coming up with a more talented Boston team in any sport that had worse apparent chemistry and/or underperformed to this extent. Similarly, I don’t recall a deservedly praised Boston head coach getting less out of his team.
Tito in 2011 and BB in 2009 come to mind, sorta, but I think these Celts pound for pound have more all around talent than those squads did. Admittedly, the cross sports thing is tough to really do.
Still, this Cs team is hard to figure.
Tito in 2011 and BB in 2009 come to mind, sorta, but I think these Celts pound for pound have more all around talent than those squads did. Admittedly, the cross sports thing is tough to really do.
Still, this Cs team is hard to figure.
Collapsing is this team's trademark. They are brittle and fragile. When everything is going right, they are an exceptional basketball team. In the face of adversity, they are prone to collapse. It is basically the opposite of what the Brad Stevens Celtics have been all about prior to this year, and it is mystifying.
While I agree that the horse has left the barn, they could cut back his minutes now for sure, for chemistry reasons alone. Just give a couple more to other guys. Rozier playing less doesn't mean that Kyrie or Wanamaker necessarily plays more. They have another ball handler on the team in Smart.
Disagree on the bolded. His level of effort on defense has been very consistent this year.
All I know is that this team has been ten times more fun to watch when he sits. They're not as talented without him but their game seems to flow better especially on the defensive end. The game against Philly before the All Star break was example A. Their record without him is SSS but those games have mostly been more enjoyable to watch. I'm not a basketball stats nerd so the numbers probably prove me wrong but I think Jaylen and Jayson play way more freely when Kyrie is not on the court.
They're not buying out Hayward unless the Celtics never want to sign another free agent (including their own) for the next 25 years. The guy who went to the free throw line 5 times last night wasn't the problem.
^^^Worst poster in MBPC since the guy with the Grandmama avatar. Zero chance Hayward is bought out. So dumb.
I don't think it's that mystifying. For whatever reason, the Cs can't get stops. Against TOR, they have the huge problem that KL can get what they want and with Siakam playing the way he is, TOR has two guys who seemingly can win one-on-one matchups.
In the game last night, someone went through every shot the Cs took in the 2Q. If you did the same with TOR (I started doing it but got fed up), you will see that TOR consistently got open looks. It's not any one thing - it's a combination of little things. Like an offensive rebound that Lowry beat TR to that lead to a open Powell 3. Like KL taking Smart or JB off the bounce and hitting an easy 15 footer (happened a few times). Like TR, TL, and MM miscommunicating on a double pick and roll leading to a dunk by someone. Or by people just being beat off the dribble with no help.
It's funny because these lapses are punctuated by good defensive plays - maybe a JB steal of a JT deflection or a Al block - but the Cs are consistently giving up open looks for the last two games. And as I've said before, the Cs aren't going to beat anyone when they are taking the ball out of their basket on a consistent basis.
BTW, I think I saw Kyrie decide to guard KL for a couple of possessions. Whether it was on purpose or by accident, that didn't work out well. Then again, no one was really stopping KL.
We get it — you don’t like Hayward.
Please don’t continue to belabor the point unless you’re going to bring analysis.
I don't accept the argument that if Hayward is bought out or traded, no free agent will ever come to Boston. If the money is right and the team is decent they will come. And it's really a moot point, because so long as Hayward's cap clogging $30+ million is on the books, they won't have the cap space for free agents anyway.
Hayward's unfortunate injury wasn't the franchise's fault.
Hayward's unfortunate injury wasn't the franchise's fault.
The C’s won 12 of 15 heading into the break and came a whisker away from beating the Bucks in Milwaukee.
A lot of overreactions here to two bad games.
A lot of overreactions here to two bad games.
You're not watching the games if you think that Hayward is part of the problem on defense. He, Smart, and Al are the only three guys on the team that are always in the right spot and generally stay in front of their man. Brown and Tatum almost make that cut, but there's the occasional youth lapses. In principle, those are the five guys bringing defense to the table.
I'm as disappointed as anyone in his offensive weakness, especially in his surprisingly weak open shooting. But both ends matter. When he has a bad shooting night, he's still contributing, unlike Kyrie, Rozier, and Morris. And at least Kyrie occasionally tries.
Waiving Hayward results in the Celtics (a) losing a player that is far, far better than your flawed opinion of him; (b) getting nothing in return; and (c) taking a dead cap hit of $13.4M over the next 5 years. That will never, ever happen.
A trade is at least a theoretical possibility, but in practice would be difficult. And it's not happening this season anyway.
Hayward's February TS% is sitting at 65.6% including three's at 44.4%, his +/- for all those who tout this (this is for you, not for me) is +12.2, ORtg of 125.
Individually, Kyrie has been fantastic all season.
These guys alone are not the problem with this team.
Individually, Kyrie has been fantastic all season.
These guys alone are not the problem with this team.
Himself
I am a Brad fan, but I simply can't assess this year's performance without concluding that he has not been successful at job number one for an NBA head coach, managing and integrating egos.
I don't know specifically what the challenge is there...but whatever is going on, the team on the court is not even close to the team we saw last year before Kyrie went down, or in the playoffs in terms of tenacity, effort, and execution.
I can certainly imagine Kyrie's future---or his seemingly mercurial personality---could be an issue. Or not.
I can certainly imagine Morris' desire for a contract---as predicted by HRB I believe---could be an issue. Or not.
I can certainly imagine Rozier's desire for a contract and the ball could be an issue. Or not.
I can certainly imagine Tatum and Brown's desire to be focal guys could be an issue. Or not.
I can certainly imagine Hayward's slow return and the need to play a guy who was initially not worthy of the minutes (but now I think clearly is) could have been an issue and could have caused impacts which linger. Or not.
I can certainly imagine there are simply too many guys who want minutes, or who want shots, and that's an issue. or not.
But whatever of those, or other things, is going on it's about people interacting and focusing on how to make the team succesful and that is what Stevens needs to be managing. I wasn't Doc Rivers' greatest fan but he was skilled at this; Phil Jackson was a master of it. Stevens, on by far his most talented team yet, has not show he can manage the people and the egos. I hope he does over the next two months, but right now it is not looking great.
I don't know specifically what the challenge is there...but whatever is going on, the team on the court is not even close to the team we saw last year before Kyrie went down, or in the playoffs in terms of tenacity, effort, and execution.
I can certainly imagine Kyrie's future---or his seemingly mercurial personality---could be an issue. Or not.
I can certainly imagine Morris' desire for a contract---as predicted by HRB I believe---could be an issue. Or not.
I can certainly imagine Rozier's desire for a contract and the ball could be an issue. Or not.
I can certainly imagine Tatum and Brown's desire to be focal guys could be an issue. Or not.
I can certainly imagine Hayward's slow return and the need to play a guy who was initially not worthy of the minutes (but now I think clearly is) could have been an issue and could have caused impacts which linger. Or not.
I can certainly imagine there are simply too many guys who want minutes, or who want shots, and that's an issue. or not.
But whatever of those, or other things, is going on it's about people interacting and focusing on how to make the team succesful and that is what Stevens needs to be managing. I wasn't Doc Rivers' greatest fan but he was skilled at this; Phil Jackson was a master of it. Stevens, on by far his most talented team yet, has not show he can manage the people and the egos. I hope he does over the next two months, but right now it is not looking great.
Disagree with the bolded with respect to GH. I am rooting really hard for him but at this point, he's having a problem guarding anyone with size (lack of hops) and can't stay in front of people with speed. He plays good off-the-ball defense and gets a bunch of steals but to my eyes, he's been a liability on the defensive end when matched up against a scorer.
Not, of course, because he doesn't try.
Smart obviously plays good defense (although Brad put him on KL last night and that didn't work very well) and Al certainly is a key part of the defense (although metrics I posted last week say that the Cs have been better on defense without him on the floor - but perhaps that is because of Baynes).
But given all of that, I have to say that to my eyes, JB is the best one-on-one defender that the Cs have, though he is prone to not being in the right place all of the time.
If you want metrics on Hayward's defense, here is one example (from right after the losses to the two LA teams), but there are others.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bostonceltics/comments/ap7q2b/himmelsbach_haywardhorford_1251_defensive_rating/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bostonceltics/comments/ap7q2b/himmelsbach_haywardhorford_1251_defensive_rating/
And they have to win 19 of their last 21 games to finish with a better regular season record than last year.
Again, I would love to know how anyone unpacks DRtg numbers on one guy who is frequently playing with other guys who play no defense. By the time you focus it down to individual pairings, the sample sizes must be ridiculously small.
If you can find a statistically significant pairing of 3-4 decent defenders with and without Hayward, I'm all ears.
And while I agree with the above that Hayward can struggle with faster players in man, he's sure as shit doing a better job than most of the rest of the roster.
IMO, Brown, Smart, and Horford are stronger in man, and Tatum is comparable. Smart and Horford are playing better team defense. He's in pretty good company.
It's really not Brown or Hayward's fault that the defense completely falls apart when Rozier enters the game. You can set your watch by it. And when they rotate Morris back in, it gets worse.
This board has turned on Morris really fast and I don't even think it's unfair. It wasn't long ago people were calling him the 2nd best player on the team and wanting to re-sign him.
That was embarrassing, and I'm not too proud at admit my role in that.
Morris seemed to be taking smarter shots this year and making solid first efforts on defense, but it was a mirage. In retrospect, I think that the majority of his solid offense to start the season was good BABIP. Once that normalized, he was back to being the guy whose only contribution last year was "at least someone on that second unit can create enough space to avoid a 24 second violation". More importantly from a future value POV was his joining TR as co-conductor of the "fuck defense" train. He still makes the periodic first effort on that end, but the second and third efforts are gone. I look forward to him in another uniform almost as much as TR. Live and learn.
That ship sailed a few months ago.
The C’s are 27-14 since their 10-10 start. That’s a 54-win pace. They won 55 last season. We hoped for more, sure, but the gnashing of teeth seems a little overwrought. And I’m convinced we’d hear a lot less of it if the C’s had enjoyed average luck and won another 3-4 games along the way.
Seems like we hear something like this after every loss - if it's close, it's "hey, we almost beat the Warriors" or "if only X hadn't happened." If it's a blowout, it's only one game or it's a schedule loss.
How many bad performances does it take to conclude that overreaction is entirely appropriate?
So you're saying that if we give them a total pass on 25% of the season, they're almost as good as they were last year without Hayward and with rookie Tatum.
Ok, I guess?
We've seen enough of the season that if anyone wants to call it a disaster, it's hard to argue. At this point the only hope left is that they catch fire as a low seed in the playoffs and can overcome home court advantage three series in a row. That would be awesome but very unlikely.
I was worried when they were 10-10. Not because I thought they would play .500 ball all season, but because I thought they were digging a big hole for themselves.
I was right. Since that time, the C’s results have been roughly in line with preseason expectations, but they either need to catch fire or get help to secure the #4 seed.
Seems to me that the SoSH consensus was too sanguine early, and is too alarmist now.
Or maybe our collective expectations were unrealistically high.
It sucks but they are what their record says they are. What that suggests is that expecting the Celtics to go deep into the playoffs is unrealistic. They just aren't constructed properly and no coach or late season release of someone like Hayward, Rozier or Morris will change things.
As such, its probably wise to watch the games with very low expectations going forward.
The 2017-18 Celtics were a 51-win team on a Pythagorean basis and could’ve been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs if a few balls had bounced the other way. You’d expect them to improve with a full season of Kyrie and development from Brown and Tatum, but this always going to be a transition year for Hayward (though I certainly thought he’d be better), and the C’s didn’t make any material additions over the summer. Maybe they could’ve won 60+ if everything broke right, but 56-57 wins was more realistic. (IIRC, the preseason over/under was 57.5.)
So if people think a 54-win pace since the early-season debacle qualifies as a disaster, then yeah, expectations were way out of whack.
he 10-10 record at the start of the season was a disappointment, but also not entirely unexpected. What's more alarming are the recent string of losses to teams they should have beat: LA x 2, Chicago. And their being simply uncompetitive against Toronto. What these losses all had in common was the continuation of disturbing trends that have been noted since the season started.
It seems likely that if the Celtics were to finish the season as the #5 seed, they would be a first round exit from the playoffs, as they are not a good road team. That outcome would classify as a major disappointment given the expectations at the start of the season.
If they are the #4 seed, they are looking at a fairly tough road just to get to the ECF. Failing to get to the Conference Finals would be rightly judged a disappointment as well.
You would have to be wearing opaque green glasses to consider this team a contender to reach the Finals, never mind win a championship. This season does prove that building a true contender in the NBA is really difficult. Perhaps overly so.
It seems likely that if the Celtics were to finish the season as the #5 seed, they would be a first round exit from the playoffs, as they are not a good road team. That outcome would classify as a major disappointment given the expectations at the start of the season.
If they are the #4 seed, they are looking at a fairly tough road just to get to the ECF. Failing to get to the Conference Finals would be rightly judged a disappointment as well.
You would have to be wearing opaque green glasses to consider this team a contender to reach the Finals, never mind win a championship. This season does prove that building a true contender in the NBA is really difficult. Perhaps overly so.
All good points.
However, I would add that, despite their flaws, this team has enough collective talent to win a few postseason series, especially when the rotations get shorter. And they still have time to get hot/make adjustments before the second season begins.
At this point, hope is all we really have and its understandable if people don't even have much of that sentiment.
Agree with all of the above but I would like to add something that I think is important in this context.
It has sucked watching Terry this year and he has often been an abject disaster. But...he still has a gear that he can reach where he's an effective player and if you take a step back and think about it from his POV, you can understand why he's unhappy with his role and can be prone to coasting. Even with all of that, you haven't heard him say anything to the media or publicly contribute anything negative.
What the fuck is Morris's excuse? He's 29 and is what he is. Got put in the starting line-up and has been, quite frankly, given a ridiculously long leash once there. As has been pointed out by Brian Robb and Jimbodandy above, his effort on close outs is legitimately pathetic. He runs head down in the general direction of the shooter and can't be bothered to even lift his arms. He rarely passes and seemingly thinks he's the best player on the court at all times (I know every time I see him, as the 4th option on the court, pound the ball and jack up a contested 15 footer a part of me dies). Not only that but he has actively contributed to the public negativity, seems miserable all the time, and has less than 0 self awareness because he actually pointed the finger at the rest of his teammates for these things!
I have no goddamn clue why Brad has kept him in both the starting and crunch time line-up. As his BABIP comes crashing down to earth and regressing to the mean, it's honestly reaching the point of negligence.
I’d argue, and have argued while also predicting at the time, that the extended winning stretch following the first 20 games was largely due to us feasting on bad lottery teams and the .500-types.
This is very fair.
Specifically which games did we lose do to “bad luck” in relation to those we won due to “good luck.”
This team seems to fit the Belichick assessment of “We are what our record is” more than any random occursmces that cost us games.
Their net rating (+5.4) gives an expected W-L of 43-18, a half game ahead of Toronto, and five games ahead of Philly. There may well be factors beyond bad luck contributing to their underperforming their pythag (and the Raps' overperforming theirs), but I don't think we can discount the possibility that much of it is luck.
That said, anecdotally: the body language on the floor and the bench these days is worrisomely glum, even when they're winning.
I’m not talking about misrepresented numbers such as net rating or pythag when referring to this seasons “bad luck” I’m referring to how this perceived “bad luck” has landed us 3-4 more losses than games we won due to “good luck.” You can’t point to the handful of 25+ (and even a 50+) wins over Cleveland, Chicago 2x, New York, and Atlanta (when they were awful) then scream that net rating or pythag says we should win x-number of games. Sure you could include this noise but it can easily be filtered to provide a more accurate account.
This doesn’t pass the smell test to me. We have a small enough sample of games to see which ones were affected by “luck” that have nothing to do with greatly skewed pythags.
Fair that you want examples, but luck is a thing. It's probably worth a handful of games over the course of the year. Hate the pythag all you want, but that too is real. This team is underperforming its components.
If your smell test tells you that the Cs problems are way bigger than luck and that we're a bad finishing team, I doubt that you'll get a lot of argument here on that. But one doesn't preclude the other.
We may have thought that it was a 60 win team, but it isn't. Some were less bullish for a variety a reasons and deserve credit for their insight.
Sure the pythag is real but what value does it possess in regards to “luck?” Every team is going to win and lose x-percent of games each year due to actual luck but I’m not convinced that has played any factor in this teams record. I know I certainly haven’t felt we’ve been unlucky. It seems like we’re the 4th-5th best team in the EC to me and in the 17 games decided by 6 or less and/or OT we are 9-8 which also sounds about right.
Luck of the schedule. Which teams do you get in day 2 of a B2B? Which games did some team rest a guy against you due to a nagging thing, especially some guy who's a bad matchup? Which games did you shoot the lights out unexpectedly and steal one vs. games when there was a lid on the basket against a weak team? Which games did you get Scott Foster?
When a team deviates from its pythag by a lot, it's understandable ro question this luck factor and its role. Sure, coaching and chemistry are bigger factors. And how well your finishing guys finish. We've all seen this shit before. Just saying, a few games last year, it seemed like we got those breaks that we're not getting anymore. Probably chemistry more than anything else.
OK. So the Blazers loss is one I feel better about. There were some things I didn't like (late hero ball from Irving and Smart), but the change to the rotation (no Rozier, shortened bench) was a step in the right direction, and the Blazers aren't the team where you would necessarily expect this to work the best. On top of that, they badly needed a real center coming off the bench but didn't have one, but will have one soon as Baynes is returning soon. They should be looking into Baynes insurance with their open roster spot for the stretch run.
I heard the announcers say last night that the Cs - because they don't have a consistent low post threat and don't get to the FT line - have to make shots to win.
Obviously when the Cs didn't or don't play well, they haven't shot well. And vice-versa. What I'm wondering aloud is: how good of a shooting team are the Cs? KI is a great shooter. But then - JT is second best shooter but he is prone to taking tough shots that no one is going to make consistently. Al was a great shooter but seems more streaky this year. MaMo is a good shooter but certainly not a great one. GH is shooting better but doesn't take a lot of shots. JB is shooting under .600 from the FT line. Smart was never even a good shooter.
As a corollary to this, I can't think of another contending team that has a worse second option than the Cs (don't really count IND without Olidipo as a contending team).
Obviously when the Cs didn't or don't play well, they haven't shot well. And vice-versa. What I'm wondering aloud is: how good of a shooting team are the Cs? KI is a great shooter. But then - JT is second best shooter but he is prone to taking tough shots that no one is going to make consistently. Al was a great shooter but seems more streaky this year. MaMo is a good shooter but certainly not a great one. GH is shooting better but doesn't take a lot of shots. JB is shooting under .600 from the FT line. Smart was never even a good shooter.
As a corollary to this, I can't think of another contending team that has a worse second option than the Cs (don't really count IND without Olidipo as a contending team).
I touched on the scoring issue in the gamethread in response to a valid question as to why Morris continues to get minutes despite struggling. The answer to me is because he is the Cs second best (or most consistent) scoring option.
Stevens simply doesn't have any great second options beyond Kyrie. As you note, Tatum isn't there yet and Brown, for all of his talents, may never be the guy. A healthy Hayward may yet evolve into that role - he would likely be it now were it not for his injury - but he clearly isn't at that point.
Take this for what it is worth.
Jay Triano was coaching in Phoenix for a while, and by chance I sat with a basketball Canada guy who said he spoke with Jay, when the Pistons and Marcus Morris were playing. The word from this guy (I know just a guy)was the Suns were happy to see the Morris brothers leave town. They liked the fire and scoring talent, but saw Marcus in particular as a roller coaster ride that never went as high as he thought he was going. There is always hope the right coach team mates can harness talent, but my eyes make me see this from MM with the Cs. Who knows what if any, contribution he has to the poor chemistry, but his past rep is a poor team mate.
Jay Triano was coaching in Phoenix for a while, and by chance I sat with a basketball Canada guy who said he spoke with Jay, when the Pistons and Marcus Morris were playing. The word from this guy (I know just a guy)was the Suns were happy to see the Morris brothers leave town. They liked the fire and scoring talent, but saw Marcus in particular as a roller coaster ride that never went as high as he thought he was going. There is always hope the right coach team mates can harness talent, but my eyes make me see this from MM with the Cs. Who knows what if any, contribution he has to the poor chemistry, but his past rep is a poor team mate.
I was at the Blazers game, and was courtside pre-game for warmups.
The Celtics are a joyless team going through the motions. The Blazers were focused and energetic, and despite the talent disparity, controlled this game from tip to buzzer. The Blazers consistently played to their strengths: Their two amazing little guards, and their perceived post up advantage with Nurcic and Kanter. Their wings filled in with gritty, opportunistic play. (Hood and Curry were garbage, and their 40 wasted combined minutes helped make this a close game).
The Celtics set offense played predominately two ways. Either they were playing a two man game with Kyrie and AL, or they were hot potato passing the ball around, turning down decent shots. Hayward is particularly guilty of this. Ar one point, he passed up an easy 8 footer to try a very difficult pass for a corner three. Tatum and Brown stand around in the corner, shoulders slumped, for much of the half court offense. The Cs got back into the game exploiting Portland's inability to cover Brown in the post, but for the last half of the fourth quarter, he (and Tatum) barely touched the ball.
The Celtics were sloppy with the ball, allowing the opportunistic Blazers to get 11 steals. I wonder if and when Stevens will get some real heat for this team's underwhelming performance. If someone who never watched a basketball game before observed last nights game, their impression might have been "Why is one team so energized and together, while the other is disjointed and just stands around, looking defeated?"
The Celtics are a joyless team going through the motions. The Blazers were focused and energetic, and despite the talent disparity, controlled this game from tip to buzzer. The Blazers consistently played to their strengths: Their two amazing little guards, and their perceived post up advantage with Nurcic and Kanter. Their wings filled in with gritty, opportunistic play. (Hood and Curry were garbage, and their 40 wasted combined minutes helped make this a close game).
The Celtics set offense played predominately two ways. Either they were playing a two man game with Kyrie and AL, or they were hot potato passing the ball around, turning down decent shots. Hayward is particularly guilty of this. Ar one point, he passed up an easy 8 footer to try a very difficult pass for a corner three. Tatum and Brown stand around in the corner, shoulders slumped, for much of the half court offense. The Cs got back into the game exploiting Portland's inability to cover Brown in the post, but for the last half of the fourth quarter, he (and Tatum) barely touched the ball.
The Celtics were sloppy with the ball, allowing the opportunistic Blazers to get 11 steals. I wonder if and when Stevens will get some real heat for this team's underwhelming performance. If someone who never watched a basketball game before observed last nights game, their impression might have been "Why is one team so energized and together, while the other is disjointed and just stands around, looking defeated?"