Celtics v Knicks 2nd Round Matchup
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
Not quite as much as I paid to get in the door for Finals G2 last year but pretty damn close. Never seen anything like it for an ECSF game.
Apparently we are living in a world where this is a bad shot according to @bankshot1
https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=420&GameID=0042400212&Season=2024-25&flag=1&title=MISS White 25' 3PT Jump Shot
https://www.nba.com/stats/events?CFID=&CFPARAMS=&GameEventID=420&GameID=0042400212&Season=2024-25&flag=1&title=MISS White 25' 3PT Jump Shot
That one was especially annoying because White had just missed a three from almost the same spot and immediately got it back. Feels like those "Player B" shots go in at a pretty high rate.
I read through todays posts fast but saw someone mention passing to Pritchard......in no world is that the correct play as you not only pass up a clean 3 but you then have Brunson right there in Pritchard's face with zero flow to the set. I suppose the alley-oop to Kristaps would have been the best option there as he was behind Robinson with only Hart in the paint but the 3-pt shot is certainly the next best option especially coming off the previous miss.
Cherry picking is a helluva way to make a point.
You going to do that for the 100 3s they took in G1 & G2?
Nothing wrong with DW's shot.
But DW also had a wide open KP at the hoop for a certified 2. He could have passed for a bunny/jam.
This is off topic and someone else (@Euclis20?) brought it up earlier but if the Celtics lose this series the takes from the media are going to be out of control.
I just listened to the beginning of the Lowe Post and Lowe talks as if the Knicks are the best team the Celtics have played in the last 2 years and “pushed them into bad habits”. No mention of Browns knee. No mention of KP’s malaria. No mention of Tatum’s wrist. Nope. Just that the Knicks are so good.
Fuck I hope they win this series
I just listened to the beginning of the Lowe Post and Lowe talks as if the Knicks are the best team the Celtics have played in the last 2 years and “pushed them into bad habits”. No mention of Browns knee. No mention of KP’s malaria. No mention of Tatum’s wrist. Nope. Just that the Knicks are so good.
Fuck I hope they win this series
It was actually me that mentioned dishing to Pritchard - but only after Brunson left his feet. It goes from a very good shot to a great shot. Is it worth it? Meh.
I didn't call any one shot as bad, but rather the strategy of jacking 60 3s and not attacking the hoop as a poor decision.
You're pitching a false narrative
Have you not looked at all of the screen shots of the WIDE OPEN 3s that the C's have missed? My god.
I think something that everyone has trouble squaring away, including some of the intelligentsia on this board, is what makes a good shot.
These players are so fucking good that you could argue for any shot being a good shot. Good offense always beats good defense, etc.
I’ll admit that I don’t know. I think some of the shots that are being hailed as very good are closer to mediocre….but then again, these guys can drain these shots at any time during a game.
For example, Jaylen’s turnaround in the lane that he goes to. People are calling that a bad shot. He made that shot all of the fucking time last year. Maybe he gets his groove back on it.
I guess my overall point is that what people classify as “open” differs from person to person. Almost like pass interference in football.
These players are so fucking good that you could argue for any shot being a good shot. Good offense always beats good defense, etc.
I’ll admit that I don’t know. I think some of the shots that are being hailed as very good are closer to mediocre….but then again, these guys can drain these shots at any time during a game.
For example, Jaylen’s turnaround in the lane that he goes to. People are calling that a bad shot. He made that shot all of the fucking time last year. Maybe he gets his groove back on it.
I guess my overall point is that what people classify as “open” differs from person to person. Almost like pass interference in football.
You are correct, it was @Eddie Jurak who said that White 3 was a bad shot.
There would be ZERO DISCUSSION of games 1 and 2 here if the Celts literally hit a single 3 more in both games, resulting in a 27% 3 point percent instead of 25%.
Tatum has taken some awful fucking shots. So has JB. NO ONE DISPUTES THIS.
What has broken people's brains is the Celts have missed a metric ton of WIDE OPEN threes. They should have won both games by 10-20 points. If they hit shots, NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT THESE GAMES.
I think you misread or didn’t understand the point of what I was saying. I haven’t argue the wide open narrative much at all.
I am arguing the “open” thing.
And, trust me, they 100% should have won both of these games
Dude you just posted one with a wide open KP at the hoop. No one was within 10 ft of KP. DW made a choice. It wasn't terrible but he missed his shot.
I saw a lot of Tatum and Brown 3 ball ISO in G1 that I thought was just bad basketball for reasons already posted.
Enjoy your dinner
To clear this up again. I wasn’t responding to any specific post. I was making a generalization. You responded to me as if I was responding to you and bankshots exchange. I wasn’t..Again, a complete generalization of a post by me
I was posting something I was thinking after looking at the discourse after both games. I even said something similar after Game 1
I get you. I was responding to the "good shot" comment. If that DWhite shot isn't a good shot.. what is?
I think one more shot they probably still end up losing. Teams are going to bahve differently on the court based on small differences in the score.
"ZERO discussion" is also over the top. As I recall, we have seen something close to the "nearly but not quite blow it" scenario - the 2022 conference final game against Miami, and I think there was plenty of talk about that nearly blown lead.
Yes, that was hyperbole. We are diehards and we care and we'd discuss even if the Celts won by 30 each game. But it would be a very quiet forum if they had hit 30-40% in G1-G2.
Hmmm, let me add a bit of nuance.
I think it's almost the other way around: the defenses are so good now that getting good shots is really hard, and you have to fucking let them fly when you get them.
This circles back to HRB's point about not passing up good shots in a possession. It completely breaks the offense if you do so.
With that minor caveat, I agree that guys are so good that a lot of the time what looks like a "contest" isn't really bothering them. This is especially true for DWhite and Pritchard: they just don't care at all if a guy is showing a hand, as long as they know before he jumps that he can't block the shot. Those ones where the defender has no chance to block are great shots for DWhite/PP-level shooters, and they should take them all day.
Strong agree that a "good shot" differs between players. In Boston's case, they've been getting good shots for guys for whom those are good shots.
Finally..............this is all a bit academic. When you look at the film, the Celtics have been missing stupidly open shots, no gray zone at all. Just shots that every decent NBA shooter would happily take all day.
Yeah, the NY pandering makes it even worse. Audience capture at its finest.
The media takes about the Knicks feel like Sycophantic ChatGPT from a couple weeks ago.
"omg yes, totally. You're fire. Amazing defense and closeouts. Keep working those late-game situations! You are so awesome."
It might've been me, I've certainly thought about it. General NBA fans are greatly enjoying the Celtics struggling, and the media is psyched to talk about the Celtics in terms other than how good they are (and of course, anyone who doesn't like the 3 point heavy style is super pumped to talk about how it's failing, even as the Celtics have gone 7-1 in playoff series in the Mazzulla era). I suspect that some of them are eager to get their takes out now, because if Boston comes back this series could end up as just a footnote - the oddsmakers still have Boston as a very slight favorite going forward, which I suspect will increase dramatically if Boston pulls out game 3.
What's really annoying is that the refs missed the clear push by Hart on KP on the putback.
Yes - if you have two opportunities from the same spot, the second one often goes in because a player can recalibrate. Someone should figure out how much higher the % would be, but I'm sure few people have the time to figure it out.
I agree the correct play was the easy oop to KP but unlike the media narrative…..we attacked the paint all night consistently. We also consistently turned the ball over and missed off balance shots at the rim rather than playing our usual inside-out game to generate open 3’s.
I was saying this all night as it was occurring….we were forcing dribble penetration to the rim almost like we didn’t want to shoot out 3’s aggressively. I want MORE open 3’s not less.
Mountains of digital ink being spilled discussing what the Celtics need to do on offense, can be boiled down to:
Run their regular offense consistently, it's generating plenty of good looks.
Hit the good looks when you have them, from 3 or otherwise.
Run their regular offense consistently, it's generating plenty of good looks.
Hit the good looks when you have them, from 3 or otherwise.
It's so funny to have these convos after the Orlando series, in which the Magic were able to take away what Boston wants to do. Now, Boston can do exactly what it wants, but it's not working.
Monkey's paw curl series.
I have been saying for a while they are not healthy enough to win.
Hope I am wrong.
If KP's illness makes him a shadow of his borderline all-star self and JB only sporadically looks like last year's ECF and finals MVP, it will be near impossible. Improved offensive play from White and Pritchard and top tier superstar performance from Tatum would be the path, but that's not looking too likely.
This was the gamble with running it back with this group. Everyone else has flaws too, so they have a chance.
Yup, this year is really looking like it's going to be about who survives injury and variance attrition, more so than usual. The 2nd round might be decisive: if Denver somehow gets past OKC, and Cleveland and Boston bow out, there's a clear path to a shock title for them.
However, I expect at least 2 of the Big Three teams to make it out of this round.
For Boston, the wildcard is that just Tatum is enough to create really good shots consistently, but he needs teammates to heat up and finish from 3. We've seen extended White/Pritchard heaters before, and that might be what it takes.
I worry that we aren't winning on the perimeter because given age, injury, Olympic/Playoff miles, and Brown's knee...we can't. Aside from Tatum we suddenly seem unathletic.
Edit: I would consider Pritchard "athletic". White, kinda, but he is not a deep handle nor fast pace guy and I'm pretty sure he got near-concussed in the Orlando series. Jrue is getting by on guile at this point IMO.
Edit: I would consider Pritchard "athletic". White, kinda, but he is not a deep handle nor fast pace guy and I'm pretty sure he got near-concussed in the Orlando series. Jrue is getting by on guile at this point IMO.
When you miss 45 3s in a game (25% in both games) and lose by 1 basket in each, it's a shooting problem
More PP and Hauser (if healthy) could help here since both are high volume/efficient 3pt shooters.
Just referencing upthread about how creating those shots are tied to making the defense help
Edit: but seeing that 25% hits every time. That is a stark statistic; of course you're right
Edit: but seeing that 25% hits every time. That is a stark statistic; of course you're right
Yes. People are losing what this offense is designed to do and why. Saying "they shouldn't drive" or "they didn't drive" is simply not how the Celtics offense is designed or what has happened the first two games.
Their offense is designed to beat their man outside (usually a Jay, less often White), force the defense to bend (on that possession) and adjust (on other possessions) and either take layups if they don't adjust or pass into open threes if they do. That's the entire base scheme. In five-out, it will generate more layups becasue of spacing (opposing big is outside); when not in 5 out, it will generate the lob opportunities for the big who trails the help on a drive (because opposing big will help in paint). And either way, if/when defense bends it creates an open three either initially or after ball rotation. When they drive this series they've gotten those looks - that's why people have all these screenshots of open threes. Roll back tape and you'll the drive is why most of the time. That's the design.
Now, unfortunately, they have been inconsistent in winning those drives (Knicks deserve credit for holding up better than in reg season on those one on one perimeter matchups); they've made generally bad decisions after they beat the first man (that is the 'driving into doubles' problem people correctly criticize, but misdiagnose as 'they shouldn't drive); they've tightened up on doing them at all in 4th (which is why I keep saying 'they need to attack MORE not less); and of course they've missed a TON of good looks they normally hit.
The media saying 'do something else' is wrong and anyone saying 'don't drive' is equally wrong. The offense is about attacking to bend the defense and then executing. They are doing the first inconsistently and the latter poorly.
That's all that is going on here.
Last edited:
The Knicks are giving up plenty of open 3s. The JAYs are tentative & can usually turn to very efficient 3pt shooting around them.
Unfortunately the others have also gone cold over G1 & G2
QUOTE="SteveF, post: 6682212, member: 1742"]
Yep. There's generally a price you pay for trying to force turnovers, and that's the fouls. If you are the right kind of team the tradeoff can be worth it both for the defensive advantages and the offensive advantages (transition) it can create.
[/QUOTE]
On the topic of turnovers, the Celtics turned the ball over 65 times in 5 games against Orlando, vs. 31 times in 2 games against the Knicks.
So, if we’re to believe that Orlando fouls more because they try to force turnovers, something’s not adding up.
The Celtics are 4-3 this postseason. They have turned it over exactly 11 times in each of the 4 wins. In the 3 losses, they have turned it over more: NYK game 1: 14, NYK game 2: 17, ORL game 3: 21.
For all of the talk of poor shooting luck and/or poor shot selection, for all the talk of “if they had just managed to hit one more shot in each game,” we can also add “if only they had taken care of the basketball against the Knicks as well as they did against the better defense of Orlando.”
In game 1 the Celtics had 4 turnovers in the third quarter, three in the 4th and 2 (both Brown) in the OT. Nine of their 14 turnovers came in the two quarters and OT which they lost.
In game 2, third quarter, they had 7 turnovers, including 3 in the final 3 minutes yes of the quarter when NYK cut the lead from 20 to 12.
This surge in turnovers has also come despite the fact that the Celtics are passing less than any other playoff team. If one views passing as (to some extent) positively associated with turnovers, that should lead to fewer not more turnovers.
Yep. There's generally a price you pay for trying to force turnovers, and that's the fouls. If you are the right kind of team the tradeoff can be worth it both for the defensive advantages and the offensive advantages (transition) it can create.
[/QUOTE]
On the topic of turnovers, the Celtics turned the ball over 65 times in 5 games against Orlando, vs. 31 times in 2 games against the Knicks.
So, if we’re to believe that Orlando fouls more because they try to force turnovers, something’s not adding up.
The Celtics are 4-3 this postseason. They have turned it over exactly 11 times in each of the 4 wins. In the 3 losses, they have turned it over more: NYK game 1: 14, NYK game 2: 17, ORL game 3: 21.
For all of the talk of poor shooting luck and/or poor shot selection, for all the talk of “if they had just managed to hit one more shot in each game,” we can also add “if only they had taken care of the basketball against the Knicks as well as they did against the better defense of Orlando.”
In game 1 the Celtics had 4 turnovers in the third quarter, three in the 4th and 2 (both Brown) in the OT. Nine of their 14 turnovers came in the two quarters and OT which they lost.
In game 2, third quarter, they had 7 turnovers, including 3 in the final 3 minutes yes of the quarter when NYK cut the lead from 20 to 12.
This surge in turnovers has also come despite the fact that the Celtics are passing less than any other playoff team. If one views passing as (to some extent) positively associated with turnovers, that should lead to fewer not more turnovers.
Last edited:
This felt like the first game where the C’s looked mostly like themselves since the playoffs started. Orlando had them playing a different style of ball and then they looked worn down the first two games. Balanced restored, at least for one game.
It turns out they didn't forget their mental toughness - it was just at the bottom of the equipment bag.
