I suspect that NBA players don't care what fans want right now. I also believe strongly that the league will support the players regardless of what they choose. The beauty of their approach thus far is that instead of a bunch of outsiders telling an affected group how they should respond, they are letting the group decide. This is how things should be imo.With the direction the Jacob Blake story is going... I'm not sure that's the hill I'd want to plant my flag, if I'm an NBA player. I'm sure the NBA doesn't want it.
I agree. I hid a few posts that ran afoul of that principle.This is an NBA forum and I would like to request that we don't get into allegations around specific high profile news cases except as they pertain to players, teams and leagues. As such, we don't need to debate the details of the Jacob Blake case here - there are plenty of other fora for that online.
My apologies. I was trying to address the NBA part of the discussion and expanded it a little too far.I agree. I hid a few posts that ran afoul of that principle.
For members, there’s a robust, ongoing discussion of the shooting of Jacob Blake in V&N. Discussion here should be confined to the impact on the NBA.
From your keyboard to the bubble:Zero prob with the teams doing what they think is right. But...is Milwaukee doing it too? It would seem they would be the first out of the gate?
Elevate? Maybe. Change? Absolutely. It would be a big move with unknown consequences both in near term and long term without a clear goal in mind to be achieved. I’m all for supporting the players and letting them decide what they think is best. I don’t think we should expect a nuclear option to necessarily be the path that leads to a different outcome. It could even bring in a worse outcome - with fans potentially turning against the players/league. Now maybe they are fine with that, but you’ll have significant salary cap/revenue considerations potentially for the next decade. We already know the ratings are suffering.You have to wonder if LeBron and others are thinking about pulling out altogether. That would elevate the conversation.
I don’t think anyone knows what would result from such a tactic but it would be the major national sports story, at least until the NFL is back. I could see that being appealing to players.Elevate? Maybe. Change? Absolutely. It would be a big move with unknown consequences both in near term and long term without a clear goal in mind to be achieved. I’m all for supporting the players and letting them decide what they think is best. I don’t think we should expect a nuclear option to necessarily be the path that leads to a different outcome. It could even bring in a worse outcome - with fans potentially turning against the players/league. Now maybe they are fine with that, but you’ll have significant salary cap/revenue considerations potentially for the next decade. We already know the ratings are suffering.
LeBron may be influential enough to catalyze similar movements in other sports - the NFL in particular.I don’t think anyone knows what would result from such a tactic but it would be the major national sports story, at least until the NFL is back. I could see that being appealing to players.
Roger Goodell's response would be something along the lines of fining the players involved for tampering with each other's free agency. Anyone who thinks his about-face on Kaep is even 1% sincere is a fool.LeBron may be influential enough to catalyze similar movements in other sports - the NFL in particular.
More of them chose the Heat (7) over the Bucks(8), then Celtics over the Raptors.18 ESPN experts pick the series and come out 13 for TOR vs 5 for Cs: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29740950/nba-playoffs-2020-experts-picks-bucks-heat-raptors-celtics-east-semis
Notably, Bobby Marks picks TOR in 5. I guess he's much better at cap calculations that player evaluations.
I don’t know what these experts have been looking at all season, but IIRC, the Celtics were 3-1 against the Raps, and built huge leads in all three wins.18 ESPN experts pick the series and come out 13 for TOR vs 5 for Cs: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29740950/nba-playoffs-2020-experts-picks-bucks-heat-raptors-celtics-east-semis
Notably, Bobby Marks picks TOR in 5. I guess he's much better at cap calculations that player evaluations.
Just to add on (all taken from ESPN):I don’t know what these experts have been looking at all season, but IIRC, the Celtics were 3-1 against the Raps, and built huge leads in all three wins.
And now they did the same thing in game one, jumping out to a big lead, blunting every little Toronto run, and turning the last 12 minutes of a playoff game into extended garbage time.
I thought the Cs would win in six, but after seeing them again handle Toronto so easily, it’s going to be Boston in 5.
Yeah no one should be too excited considering we're now exactly as far as last year's team got (sweep in round 1 followed by a game 1 upset in round 2), but I'm cautiously optimistic for a few reasons:I loved how today went, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. All of the Celtics big players shot the ball well except for Brown while Smart was ridiculously good for him. Toronto's big players outside of Lowry were 3-16, 5-16, 4-10, and 4-12. You would expect the Raptors to make more shots in Game 2. Can the Celtics keep up the balanced scoring from today with 6 players in double figures? I'm optimistic, but the series can change on a dime.
What does it possibly mean that TOR is the better team but the Cs have a head-to-head advantage? Better in what way? That's a weird way of putting it.Zach Lowe said on his podcast a week or two ago that he believes Tor is a better team than Boston, but that the Celtics were the favorite in a head to head.
I think the first part of that is likely in some of the “expert” heads and many don’t work hard enough to see the second part.
I was optimistic coming in for reason mentioned above: Tor doesn’t have a clear offensive advantage anywhere to get easy hoops. What was clear today in addition is Celtics are a lot quicker offensively. If Tor doesn’t have a way to slow things down (eg be physical without fouling) they can’t stop Celtics. Too many times Celts won on the ball and then rotated the ball for easy looks.
Toronto finished a full 5 games ahead of Boston in the standings. It's not exactly a stretch to say that they are the better team overall (against the other 28 teams), and now that the Celtics have won 4 of 5 meetings, it's not a stretch to say the Celtics have the head to head advantage. I understand what he meant, especially because I felt like the exact opposite was true against the Sixers (at least with Simmons). We didn't appear to match up that well against their full team, but we finished way ahead of them in the final standings.What does it possibly mean that TOR is the better team but the Cs have a head-to-head advantage? Better in what way? That's a weird way of putting it.
BOS has the best player in the series and probably has the 2nd best (Kemba). TOR is a mediocre team in the half-court against the entire NBA and now has to play a team that is really good, really long, and really well-coached. At this point, TOR does not appear to have anyone who commands a double-team in the half-court. On defense, Lowry and FVV are excellent perimeter defenders but putting them in the post against either JT or JB is going to create open looks somewhere and Brad could do more of that if he wanted.
TOR's a good team, a well-coached team, but BOS is a bad match-up for them. Not sure what other options Nurse has. Maybe play Gasol in the post more?
I would be surprised if TOR took more than one game.
This is a good catch.Also, Chris Forsberg with an article praising Kemba's defense: https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/its-time-give-celtics-kemba-walker-praise-his-defense-nba-playoffs?b. One bit:
The Celtics deployed Walker as the primary defender on Fred VanVleet Sunday and watched VanVleet clang his way to 11 points on 3-of-16 shooting while missing nine of the 11 3-pointers he attempted. Walker set a tone from the game’s opening possession, chasing VanVleet on a give-and-go handoff with Siakam, and forcing a miss near the rim.Walker gamely ran through about 1,000 screens Sunday simply trying to contest VanVleet’s shots. Maybe it was just a bad shooting night for the Toronto guard after a long and emotional layoff. But after shooting 56 percent beyond the 3-point arc in Round 1, Walker helped limit him to 2-of-11 shooting from distance in Game 1. And the NBA's hustle stats credited Walker with contesting five shots (tied for the most among any non-big on the Celtics).Walker was also credited with a team-high three deflections and had a steal. The Celtics posted a defensive rating of 85.7 — or nearly 5 points lower than their already sterling 90.4 for the game — during Walker’s 32 minutes of floor time. Hone in on the 30 minutes that Walker and VanVleet shared the court and that number was a mere 87.9.
more at the link.
I'd put more weight on point differential than W-L for prediction of future performance, and they were basically tied in the regular season (Bos +6.4, Tor +6.3).Toronto finished a full 5 games ahead of Boston in the standings. It's not exactly a stretch to say that they are the better team overall (against the other 28 teams), and now that the Celtics have won 4 of 5 meetings, it's not a stretch to say the Celtics have the head to head advantage. I understand what he meant, especially because I felt like the exact opposite was true against the Sixers (at least with Simmons). We didn't appear to match up that well against their full team, but we finished way ahead of them in the final standings.
Others have highlighted specifics, but the simplest explanation is that playoff nba is all about matchups—both individual and team style. Especially earlier in the playoffs there can be a gap between how well a team matches up with the generic opposition and how well they match up with a particular opponentWhat does it possibly mean that TOR is the better team but the Cs have a head-to-head advantage? Better in what way? That's a weird way of putting it.
BOS has the best player in the series and probably has the 2nd best (Kemba). TOR is a mediocre team in the half-court against the entire NBA and now has to play a team that is really good, really long, and really well-coached. At this point, TOR does not appear to have anyone who commands a double-team in the half-court. On defense, Lowry and FVV are excellent perimeter defenders but putting them in the post against either JT or JB is going to create open looks somewhere and Brad could do more of that if he wanted.
TOR's a good team, a well-coached team, but BOS is a bad match-up for them. Not sure what other options Nurse has. Maybe play Gasol in the post more?
I would be surprised if TOR took more than one game.
TOR obviously had the better regular season record but I discount that because it strikes me that Brad is more interested in seeing how guys perform in certain situations than winning certain games. you know, data.Toronto finished a full 5 games ahead of Boston in the standings. It's not exactly a stretch to say that they are the better team overall (against the other 28 teams), and now that the Celtics have won 4 of 5 meetings, it's not a stretch to say the Celtics have the head to head advantage. I understand what he meant, especially because I felt like the exact opposite was true against the Sixers (at least with Simmons). We didn't appear to match up that well against their full team, but we finished way ahead of them in the final standings.
I was wrong about the Jaylen on Siakam part: it turns out that the Celtics have 4 guys who are bad matchups for Siakam: Semi, Jaylen, Grant, and Marcus.Celtics pretty clearly imo.
As it is, I'll say Celtics in 6. Healthy Kemba makes a way bigger difference than people think, and Brown will take away a lot of Siakam's mismatch advantage on offense.
This isn't a homer thing: I am going to pick Milwaukee in 5-6 if that series happens.
Interesting stat that Siakam is only 47.4 eFG% in the halfcourt. The Celtics are a good transition defense, and he's had a rough time against them as a result.Some good content about corner 3s:
https://www.nba.com/article/2020/08/30/celtics-punish-raptors-game-plan-game-1
Brown came out hot, got into foul trouble, and tailed off. His whole game wasn't good but he was a key part of the early lead the Celtics jumped out to, which they never really relinquished.Yeah no one should be too excited considering we're now exactly as far as last year's team got (sweep in round 1 followed by a game 1 upset in round 2), but I'm cautiously optimistic for a few reasons:
-The Celtics have pretty thoroughly handled the Raptors so far this year. See post #75
-Tatum didn't exactly go off, just 21 points on 18 shots. He can do better.
-As noted, Jaylen was pretty awful.
Interesting that when asked postgame about the transition defense stat that the Celtics allowed only 7 transition points, Stevens said that must be a bad stat and that there was a lot of room for improvement in the transition D. John Karalis broke down what that was about on the Locked On Celtics podcast: Toronto got very little offense off of steals and Celtic turnovers, which might be where the 7-point stat came from. But Toronto had an offensive rating of 136 off of Celtic missed baskets, which is likely what Stevens had in mind.Great game. BUT Celtics shot 44% from 3, the Raptors shot 25%. If we bring those both to 35%, it’s a 21 point difference. Let’s not get too confident after a great win.
Thought the Celtics did a great job of trying to contain the transition offense of Toronto. Clearly a key point for Brad.
The Celts will need to do a better job adjusting to the shifting defense of Tor (man to zone hurt them today). Ideally a good Tatum resolves that.
as long as Kemba doesn't start clanging 20 shots/gm, covering Pascal 1 on 1, ignoring Brad and blaming the "inexperienced players" postgame - the C's should be OKYeah no one should be too excited considering we're now exactly as far as last year's team got (sweep in round 1 followed by a game 1 upset in round 2), but I'm cautiously optimistic for a few reasons:
any chance for a short summary for those who don't have a subscription?