General Celtics thread: 24-25 edition

[benhogan]

The funny thing is, OKC's 1st half strategy was more geared to find new points of weakness in Boston than the 2nd half was.

They explicitly tried to play the Celtics straight up, not overhelp, and limit 2-on-1 3s.

They got completely smoked, even though Boston shot poorly from 3; were lucky to be within 10 in their own building at the half.

From a process perspective, I thought the Celtics handled a possible point of weakness really well; they surprised me to the upside.

OKC did a good job gumming up the lane. I need to watch OKC a bit more now, there were some things they did that I liked. Somehow they got KP to stumble through the lane a bunch of times in the 2nd half, rather than KP running to the foul line, sealing his man, accepting the ball & then facing the basket with a few pump fakes. They picked up ball-pressure high and made the Celtics ball-handlers life difficult. Don't recall many doubles.

BUT I really need to go back and re-watch. My knee-jerk reaction is to say IF they hit 33% of their 3s it's a completely different story and they win easily (but I want to see the quality of those 3s also).

 

[InstaFace]

It'd be interesting to see some numbers on shot quality. I didn't see the game but just read the game thread and it seemed the consensus was that C's were getting good looks but missing. Did that change in the 2nd half?

I just finished watching on VOD, and my sense is that (A) we went away from some of the play calls that had success in the first half, played a bit more hero ball, (B) didn't get as much transition opportunity (were a lot sloppier on the boards in the 2H), and (C) got a pretty rough whistle on at least half a dozen shots at the rim, on both ends (Jaylen got zero points, but it wasn't for lack of trying - he was hacked at the rim several times without a call, as was Tatum). We weren't just standing on the line and chucking. But when nothing's having success, you can't expect the other team to react as if they're afraid of either outcome. Biggest thing that changed, besides (A), was probably OKC getting a lot handsier with pressure on passes and hand-checking on drives and on fighting for position.

Defensively, our on-ball defense was solid all night but I felt like we left 3-point shooters completely unguarded, especially in the corner, way too often for my liking. Happened in the Indy loss too. Dort is shooting 40.0% from deep this year after 39.4% last year, he can't be the one we just drop. Cason Wallace has struggled from deep this year (after a very strong rookie season) but knocked a bunch down when we just forgot about him in the corner a few times. If we're contesting well and they just hit 'em, whatever, tip your cap, but unguarded 3s from the corner feel like one of the things we ought to be prioritizing.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Twenty-seven points in the second half. That's not just bad luck. I suppose it is just coincidence that they happened to shoot poorly when playing against the team with the best defensive record?

 

[chilidawg]

I just finished watching on VOD, and my sense is that (A) we went away from some of the play calls that had success in the first half, played a bit more hero ball, (B) didn't get as much transition opportunity (were a lot sloppier on the boards in the 2H), and (C) got a pretty rough whistle on at least half a dozen shots at the rim, on both ends (Jaylen got zero points, but it wasn't for lack of trying - he was hacked at the rim several times without a call, as was Tatum). We weren't just standing on the line and chucking. But when nothing's having success, you can't expect the other team to react as if they're afraid of either outcome. Biggest thing that changed, besides (A), was probably OKC getting a lot handsier with pressure on passes and hand-checking on drives and on fighting for position.

Defensively, our on-ball defense was solid all night but I felt like we left 3-point shooters completely unguarded, especially in the corner, way too often for my liking. Happened in the Indy loss too. Dort is shooting 40.0% from deep this year after 39.4% last year, he can't be the one we just drop. Cason Wallace has struggled from deep this year (after a very strong rookie season) but knocked a bunch down when we just forgot about him in the corner a few times. If we're contesting well and they just hit 'em, whatever, tip your cap, but unguarded 3s from the corner feel like one of the things we ought to be prioritizing.

Awesome, thanks

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I just finished watching on VOD, and my sense is that (A) we went away from some of the play calls that had success in the first half, played a bit more hero ball, (B) didn't get as much transition opportunity (were a lot sloppier on the boards in the 2H), and (C) got a pretty rough whistle on at least half a dozen shots at the rim, on both ends (Jaylen got zero points, but it wasn't for lack of trying - he was hacked at the rim several times without a call, as was Tatum). We weren't just standing on the line and chucking. But when nothing's having success, you can't expect the other team to react as if they're afraid of either outcome. Biggest thing that changed, besides (A), was probably OKC getting a lot handsier with pressure on passes and hand-checking on drives and on fighting for position.

One specific example of hero ball stood out to me. About halfway through the third quarter, C's up 8, KP takes a deep three and misses. Hartenstein gets the rebound and... KP picks his pocket with a great move you'd expect to see from a guard. KP is on the right side above the break and JT flashes to the top of the key, open, arms up looking for the ball. And KP didn't pass it to him. KP made a couple of moves and then shot a three that missed. After that miss OKC doubled up the Celtics the rest of the way, 41-20.

Defensively, our on-ball defense was solid all night but I felt like we left 3-point shooters completely unguarded, especially in the corner, way too often for my liking. Happened in the Indy loss too. Dort is shooting 40.0% from deep this year after 39.4% last year, he can't be the one we just drop. Cason Wallace has struggled from deep this year (after a very strong rookie season) but knocked a bunch down when we just forgot about him in the corner a few times. If we're contesting well and they just hit 'em, whatever, tip your cap, but unguarded 3s from the corner feel like one of the things we ought to be prioritizing.

My impression is that if someone compared the quality and openness of their threes vs ours, theirs would on net be better. They seemed to have quite a few wide open corner threes and some above the break threes where the closest Celtic was practically in the restricted area. Maybe there was a plan to leave certain guys wide open because they were less of a threat? But it really stood out.

 

[RorschachsMask]

Twenty-seven points in the second half. That's not just bad luck. I suppose it is just coincidence that they happened to shoot poorly when playing against the team with the best defensive record?

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[AMS25]

From a process perspective, I don't think there were many positives for OKC from this game. They don't have the personnel to play Boston straight up, and Boston was able to figure out how to make SGA work after giving up layups/FTs to him on every early possession.

You probably don't watch OKC as much as I do (Thunder fan). This game was typical Thunder. Unless OKC is playing someone hopeless (think the Wizards or the Hornets), the Thunder often start off slow and play from behind. The third quarter is key -- if the Thunder are going to win, they use that quarter to make up ground. They either pull ahead in the third or fourth but end up winning in the end. Recently, this happened in a game against the Pacers. Then, the Timberwolves. And the Knicks. OKC may stumble and bumble for a few quarters, but the Thunder are strong finishers.

 

[lovegtm]

You probably don't watch OKC as much as I do (Thunder fan). This game was typical Thunder. Unless OKC is playing someone hopeless (think the Wizards or the Hornets), the Thunder often start off slow and play from behind. The third quarter is key -- if the Thunder are going to win, they use that quarter to make up ground. They either pull ahead in the third or fourth but end up winning in the end. Recently, this happened in a game against the Pacers. Then, the Timberwolves. And the Knicks. OKC may stumble and bumble for a few quarters, but the Thunder are strong finishers.

I would be more persuaded by this analysis if I hadn't watched the game--Boston just missed shots.

The Celtics went 1-23 from 3 in a stretch starting late in the 2nd. If they hit 6-23 instead (which is still awful, particularly given that the looks were decent to good), they would have been up by 19 going into the 4th.

Twenty-seven points in the second half. That's not just bad luck. I suppose it is just coincidence that they happened to shoot poorly when playing against the team with the best defensive record?

They whomped that team with the best defensive record in the first half, and then missed a lot of shots. Yes, it is just coincidence.

 

[slamminsammya]

Twenty-seven points in the second half. That's not just bad luck. I suppose it is just coincidence that they happened to shoot poorly when playing against the team with the best defensive record?

There’s very little evidence that defenses can impact opponents 3p shooting pct. It’s widely considered to be luck and you get better predictions of future team defense if you correct opponent 3p% to factor out shot luck.

 

[Euclis20]

Twenty-seven points in the second half. That's not just bad luck. I suppose it is just coincidence that they happened to shoot poorly when playing against the team with the best defensive record?

As always, it's a mix of things. I'm comfortable saying that they could play a game that literally had all 10 all-defense team members, and they wouldn't shoot under 20% from 3 again. There's having a bad night, then there's having literally your worst shooting game in 3 years. The fact that they were that ice cold and they were still competitive, on the road, against a top 3 team, is noteworthy.

 

[InstaFace]

Twenty-seven points in the second half. That's not just bad luck. I suppose it is just coincidence that they happened to shoot poorly when playing against the team with the best defensive record?

Teams are shooting 33.1% from deep against the Thunder, which is the lowest make rate against in the league. So it's surely not entirely a coincidence.

That said, if we make 33%, that 9-for-46 becomes 15 or 16 for 46, we score 18 or 21 more points, and ceterus paribus, we win. We don't have to shoot to our averages, or even their averages against - we just have to not have our worst shooting night of the season. OKC has played 35 games so far, and this was their 3rd-lowest opponent 3P% of the season. Do we think Boston is among the worst 3-point shooting teams of the league? No, surely we do not. So we can't really say this outcome was a fair representation of how their 3-point defense generally goes, because it was an outlier for them defensively, as well as for us shooting it. It was our worst 3P% game of the season by a mile (2nd place: 23.9% @ WAS on 11/22, a game we won); of our bottom 7 3P% games of the year, we've lost 5 of those 7. So while we need to give credit to OKC's defense, we shouldn't bend over backwards to make like this is normal for them.

Perhaps, take the Four Factors: in their 35 games, today was OKC's 5th-lowest opponent eFG% against, sandwiched between their games against offensive juggernauts like... *shuffles notes* Toronto and Houston. The turnover %s were the same for both teams, we won the offensive rebound %s slightly, and absolutely wrecked them on getting to the line (FTA rate: BOS 28.2%, OKC 14.9%). But OKC's eFG was 54%, roughly season average for them, while Boston's was 41.8%, which was our lowest of the season by a full 5 five percentage points (46.4% vs CHI on 12/19, also a loss). Those numbers scream out that this was a shooting-variance loss.

That's not to say there aren't great lessons for the Cs to take from this, in terms of some things OKC was doing to make us uncomfortable and get us into hero-ball mode, or how they generated steals, or our defensive rotations. Every game can help us get better, and this game moreso than most. But we shouldn't read too much into the result itself, either.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

They whomped that team with the best defensive record in the first half, and then missed a lot of shots. Yes, it is just coincidence.

So your opinion would be that the Celtics offense performed well in the second half, by all measures other than open shots falling?

 

[HomeRunBaker]

So, OKC held the Celtics to 27 points in the seocnd half.

The Celtics, at full strength, played this game to win. KP played his best game since last season.

OKC, missing one of their best players (Holmgren) and one of the best defensive guards in the league (Caruso), just dominated the Celtics during the second half. I think you could probably count on on hand the number of clean offensive possessions the Celtics had during the last 18 minutes of the game.

The Celtics defense remained very good for almost all of the game, but when OKC turned up the defensive intensity on the Celtics, the Celtics just fell apart, and the game gradually went from Celtics missing shots to Celtics turning the ball over repeatedly, to, at the very end, Celtics making defensive lapses.

The only good thing the Celtics can take from this game is how good KP looked individually. The bad thing is how awful they were in spite of that.

OKC also had a pretty significant rest and prep advantage having not traveled in 8 days while catching the Celtics in the middle of a tough road swing after having just won in Minnesota and Houston on B2B nights less than 48 hours earlier. The early start time didn’t do Boston any favors either.

 

[lovegtm]

So your opinion would be that the Celtics offense performed well in the second half, by all measures other than open shots falling?

I thought that the 3rd quarter was mostly fine, except for the shots not falling, with the usual ups and downs that an offense has.

I thought they kind of went off the rails in the 4th, as the physicality and not making anything ever got to them a bit.

 

[slamminsammya]

I thought that the 3rd quarter was mostly fine, except for the shots not falling, with the usual ups and downs that an offense has.

I thought they kind of went off the rails in the 4th, as the physicality and not making anything ever got to them a bit.

They lost composure towards the end there with the refereeing. I also thought Jaylen had a weird stretch of wanting to prove he could take over and each failure to do so hardened his resolve to dominate the next possession. Weird game from him.

 

[kazuneko]

I get that the Thunder are a great defensive team but it was hard to watch that game and not notice how differently the refs called the two halves, and then not wonder if that had anything to do with the Cs complete inability to score in the second half.
In the first half the refs were quick to blow the whistle whenever the Cs took it strong to the hoop - and it really opened up the game for the them. In the second half, the same offense led to a completely different response, as the refs didn’t call fouls no matter how aggressively OKC defended. Either way they call it the Refs need to be more consistent. It’s just really frustrating to watch.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The Celtics had 10 turnovers in the second half, 7 of those in the 4th quarter. They had 3 assists as a team in the second half. They shot 8-40 from the field, which includes 3-24 from three but also 5-16 from 2. Not every 3 they took was a good (open) one. In the 4th quarter, only Tatum and Horford scored.

Brown led the team with 21 points in the first half and then scored zero in the second, on 0-7 shooting (0-4 from three). He was held without an assist, a rebound, a steal, or a block, and he turned it over twice. That performance was terrible, and can only partly be attributed to missing threes that he would normally hit. If he's 2-4 from three we wouldn't be calling this a good half from him by any means.

Holiday, White, Hauser, and Pritchard joined Brown in the second half zero club. They combined to shoot 0 for 12, 0 for 10 from three. Like Brown, Hauser and Pritchard could not manage a single assist, rebound, steal, or block.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

John Karalis rundown of the 4th quarter lays the blame with the Celtics poor drives.

First he goes through the 11 three-pointers taken (2 makes) and concludes that only one of them was bad (an opportunity from the corner where Jrue had the opportunity to drive and create), another iffy (White off the dribble with a lot of clock).

9. Holiday gets a clean look but this, I think, is the one truly bad 3-pointer in this mix. Even if someone says it's Holiday in the corner with a clean look, this configuration screams drive.

He has a drive and dump off to White for a possible layup. Even if the help comes over, Brown will either be open for the 3 or on a cut for, probably, a dunk behind the help. All Holiday needed was one dribble and the Celtics would have gotten something better. Of all the 3s they took in this fourth quarter, this is the only one I'm calling the flat-out bad read and a bad shot.

A video of all 12:

View: https://youtu.be/EDNl6Kb3t0I


I would quibble a bit - he calls the 2 Brown attempts good, but I think both of those were well defended. On one of them he points to Brown having a low shot clock - which is fine if you are evaluating Brown's decision making, but not so much if you are evaluating the Celtics offense as a whole.

5. Weird play, Brown had no choice. He could have tried firing a pass to Porzingis but with two and change left on the shot clock, it's hard to make that play. If there were five seconds on the clock, then it would have been a bad 3.

To the extent threes like this one are the shots you end up taking "bad 3-point luck" is not an adequate expalanation for the Celtics problems. But as Karalis notes, that largely was not the case in the 4th.

But Karalis also notes that in terms of non-threes, the Celtics offense was hot garbage in the 4th.

The Celtics drove and scored 34 points in the paint in the first half. I've said this before, but a lot of times when this happens, it's not an adjustment of offensive style, it's the Celtics just doing what they always do and taking the opportunities that present themselves. The Thunder were taking away 3-pointers in the first half and so the reads for Boston were to go straight to the rim. It worked out very well for them, but there is always a trap laying in wait when one particular thing goes great for a team.

In this instance, it's the hunting of a specific shot. Getting the rim worked so well in the first half that Jaylen Brown went for it again right away in the second. He met resistance at the rim and had Tatum wide open in the corner, but he took the shot instead and missed. He spent time complaining to the official about a foul, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander got the rebound, brought it up the floor and scored. That should have been a kick out to the corner.

And his specific analysis of the 4th quarter drives...

View: https://youtu.be/LT4sY1KLNMQ

Brown is gathering with THREE Thunder defenders on him yet he still goes up for the shot. Because he's Jaylen Brown, he still almost make it, but that play is screaming for a pass to Holiday in the corner. If that's open,he shoots it, otherwise, it's a pass to Tatum. If Tatum is open, he shoots it, otherwise, it's a dribble drive to the middle. He'd have three options in the middle. I have diagrammed a kick to Horford, who would undoubtedly be alone in the corner, but he could obviously try to finish if the rim was open, or he'd probably have Brown again, either waiting in the dunker spot or rotating out to the left corner.

Terrible read by Brown.

View: https://youtu.be/njJ6O7mjSug

Here's another miss at the rim. This was horrible spacing. Brown drove and no one moved into two spots that could have been outlets for him.

View: https://youtu.be/njJ6O7mjSug

This is Tatum's fault. He's supposed to slide down into the corner. Brown needs to have better awareness, but his teammates need to give him outlets.

Tatum is just determined to get to rim on this one. Okay, fine, but if you're gonna do that, then do it with power. If you're not dunking this, then you'd better be passing this.

The drive option demands Tatum play with more force. On this drive, he's simply trying to out-sprint everyone to rim and glide for the layup. He gets too out of control. I thought he was fouled on this play watching it live, but he wasn't. He just fell. What he should have done was slow down, put a shoulder in Hartenstein's chest, bury him under the basket, play off two feet, and dunk on him.

The problem is that White's defender is helping. I think he would have been stripped if he tried to dunk on Hartenstein. Instead, Tatum has to see three black shirts and understand what's happening. White is wide open. Taking the extra dribble guarantees White would be all alone in the corner with no one within 15 feet of him.

This is a bad read. Mazzulla's offense demands this pass be made. And while you might say the Celtics were cold, what better way to get someone going then a massively wide-open corner 3-pointer? A pass and make in this situation could have gotten White going for a late scoring spurt. [/QUOTE]

View: https://youtu.be/njJ6O7mjSug

Again, Tatum plays off one foot and is off balance. If he's hell-bent on shooting this, he needs to play off two feet. This play calls for a pro hop and attacking the front of the rim to score. That's the absolute best way to get where he needs to go and maybe even draw a foul. If he's not going to do that, then he needs to pass the ball to White here.

I think it is deficient analysis to conclude that the Celtics outplayed OKC but for bad 3 point shooting luck. Their offense wilted under pressure by the OKC defense, and it led them to turn the ball over a lot, make poor decisions that led to worse opportunities, and, yes, they missed a bunch of threes that one would normally expect them to hit at least a few of them. But that latter point is how they could have pulled out a win in a game where their offense wasn't running on all cylinders, not a justification of the poor decision making that they increasingly made as the game went on.

 

[tims4wins]

@Eddie Jurak you linked the same JB missed layup 3 times...

 

[RorschachsMask]

This is absolutely absurd, and why I can’t think that game was anything other than just insane shooting variance

 

[128]

View: https://twitter.com/ChrisForsberg_/status/1876247443639329215

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

It was actually worse than it seems - BOS made 2 of its first three 3Ps and 3 of the first 6. So they went 6-40 the rest of the way. Uggh.

People can watch all 46 3Ps here - Video and Shotcharts | Stats | NBA.com - and determine how many of them were open.

edit: not sure if NBA.com has updated shooting stats yet.

 

[lovegtm]

John Karalis rundown of the 4th quarter lays the blame with the Celtics poor drives.

First he goes through the 11 three-pointers taken (2 makes) and concludes that only one of them was bad (an opportunity from the corner where Jrue had the opportunity to drive and create), another iffy (White off the dribble with a lot of clock).



A video of all 12:

View: https://youtu.be/EDNl6Kb3t0I


I would quibble a bit - he calls the 2 Brown attempts good, but I think both of those were well defended. On one of them he points to Brown having a low shot clock - which is fine if you are evaluating Brown's decision making, but not so much if you are evaluating the Celtics offense as a whole.



To the extent threes like this one are the shots you end up taking "bad 3-point luck" is not an adequate expalanation for the Celtics problems. But as Karalis notes, that largely was not the case in the 4th.

But Karalis also notes that in terms of non-threes, the Celtics offense was hot garbage in the 4th.



And his specific analysis of the 4th quarter drives...

View: https://youtu.be/LT4sY1KLNMQ




View: https://youtu.be/njJ6O7mjSug




View: https://youtu.be/njJ6O7mjSug




Tatum is just determined to get to rim on this one. Okay, fine, but if you're gonna do that, then do it with power. If you're not dunking this, then you'd better be passing this.

The drive option demands Tatum play with more force. On this drive, he's simply trying to out-sprint everyone to rim and glide for the layup. He gets too out of control. I thought he was fouled on this play watching it live, but he wasn't. He just fell. What he should have done was slow down, put a shoulder in Hartenstein's chest, bury him under the basket, play off two feet, and dunk on him.

The problem is that White's defender is helping. I think he would have been stripped if he tried to dunk on Hartenstein. Instead, Tatum has to see three black shirts and understand what's happening. White is wide open. Taking the extra dribble guarantees White would be all alone in the corner with no one within 15 feet of him.

This is a bad read. Mazzulla's offense demands this pass be made. And while you might say the Celtics were cold, what better way to get someone going then a massively wide-open corner 3-pointer? A pass and make in this situation could have gotten White going for a late scoring spurt.

View: https://youtu.be/njJ6O7mjSug




I think it is deficient analysis to conclude that the Celtics outplayed OKC but for bad 3 point shooting luck. Their offense wilted under pressure by the OKC defense, and it led them to turn the ball over a lot, make poor decisions that led to worse opportunities, and, yes, they missed a bunch of threes that one would normally expect them to hit at least a few of them. But that latter point is how they could have pulled out a win in a game where their offense wasn't running on all cylinders, not a justification of the poor decision making that they increasingly made as the game went on.
[/QUOTE]
This actually matches my recollection pretty well, and it's why my assessment was more positive than yours, while still acknowledging that the 4th quarter was bad.

Most of the non-3 point offense is what happens when you get frustrated that nothing is falling at all, so you start trying to "make stuff happen", and stop making your normal reads.

I think this game goes wayyyy differently if they make a few 3s in the 3rd, and they keep playing the offense that had them in control up to that point.

It's hard to overstate how much of an outlier a 1-23 stretch is (Rorschach's potential assist stats get at it), and that massively affected the game.

For a counterexample of when I was actually concerned: I thought their Christmas Day performance against Philly was embarrassing and worrying.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

OK, have confirmed. According to NBA.com, the Cs

• went 0-0 on 3Ps with a defender within 2 feet (season avg = 33.3% on 9 attempts)
• went 1-7 on 3Ps with a defender within 2-4 feet (season avg = 30.9% on 256 attempts)
• went 5-19 on 3Ps with a defender within 4-6 feet (season avg = 36.3% on 752 attempts) and
• went 2-320 on 3Ps with a defender (season avg = 38.9% on 789 attempts).

My guess is that BOS won the expected points battle but I've not been able to finish watching the game yet.

edit: fixed; thanks @lovegtm

 

[lovegtm]

OK, have confirmed. According to NBA.com, the Cs

• went 0-0 on 3Ps with a defender within 2 feet (season avg = 33.3% on 9 attempts)
• went 1-7 on 3Ps with a defender within 2-4 feet (season avg = 30.9% on 256 attempts)
• went 5-19 on 3Ps with a defender within 4-6 feet (season avg = 36.3% on 752 attempts) and
• went 2-30 on 3Ps with a defender (season avg = 38.9% on 789 attempts).

My guess is that BOS won the expected points battle but I've not been able to finish watching the game yet.

Is that last number supposed to be 2-20? That would add up to 46.

This makes me even more confident in saying that this was a Boston blowout, masked by historically bad variance.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Most of the non-3 point offense is what happens when you get frustrated that nothing is falling at all, so you start trying to "make stuff happen", and stop making your normal reads.

I think this game goes wayyyy differently if they make a few 3s in the 3rd, and they keep playing the offense that had them in control up to that point.

This team needs to be better at playing their style of offense through adversity. Maybe they are normally able to lose focus and still win because they hit enough threes.

 

[slamminsammya]

This team needs to be better at playing their style of offense through adversity. Maybe they are normally able to lose focus and still win because they hit enough threes.

Do they need to? I feel like the past two years they’ve gotten really good at grinding wins when they don’t hit shots. Last night was not one of those times but generally they’re really good.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

This team needs to be better at playing their style of offense through adversity. Maybe they are normally able to lose focus and still win because they hit enough threes.

CJM says that the hardest thing to do is when the team is missing lots of 3Ps, keep running the offense. I mean hasn't most everyone in the media (and on the board) suggested that when the 3Ps aren't falling, the Cs should fall back to taking fewer 3Ps - i.e., attacking the rim?

Third game in 4 nights; weird start time; really good opponent who has been home for 8 days. It's January. Seems to me that the Cs played fine. Not great but fine. Which is fine.

 

[FireChief]

This team needs to be better at playing their style of offense through adversity. Maybe they are normally able to lose focus and still win because they hit enough threes.

Not to pile on, EJ, but doesn’t the shot openness analysis WBCD added, plus Rorschach’s potential assist data make exactly that point? And that they were just colder than cold as lovegtm has been saying?

 

[lovegtm]

This team needs to be better at playing their style of offense through adversity. Maybe they are normally able to lose focus and still win because they hit enough threes.

I think they are generally pretty good at it? Lost in all this is that, in the 3rd Q they
- held OKC to only 21 points
- were still up by 4
- played pretty good offense through it

Of course it would be great to stay locked in through one of the coldest stretches we've ever seen (this was approaching Rockets 0-27 territory), but these are humans, not robots.

 

[RorschachsMask]

EJ must have been frothing at the mouth after that second half.

 

[themuddychicken]

I don't know how anyone watched that game yesterday and came away thinking that Boston has anything to worry about.

They shot 20% from 3 and were right there in the game with 5 minutes left.

A hot Lue Dort in the final couple minutes saved OKC from having to answer why they struggled to beat a team that had their worst shooting night of the season.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Is that last number supposed to be 2-20? That would add up to 46.

This makes me even more confident in saying that this was a Boston blowout, masked by historically bad variance.

The other remarkable thing from the data is that the Cs don't take contested 3Ps hardly at all - 9 all season.

Mazzulla ball is predicated on generating open to wide-open 3Ps. Which for the Cs, being a historically good 3P shooting team with a great defense, will be deadly over a 7-game series.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Do they need to? I feel like the past two years they’ve gotten really good at grinding wins when they don’t hit shots. Last night was not one of those times but generally they’re really good.

Last nightit happened against a top notch defense in a game the Celtics came out fired up to win.

CJM says that the hardest thing to do is when the team is missing lots of 3Ps, keep running the offense. I mean hasn't most everyone in the media (and on the board) suggested that when the 3Ps aren't falling, the Cs should fall back to taking fewer 3Ps - i.e., attacking the rim?

Joe doesn't train them to take threes or not to take threes. He wants them creating the best shots, whether threes or not. When Tatum takes the ball into the paint surrounded by 3 defenders, Mazzulla doesn't want him forcing a contested layup, he wants him kicking it out. If the open layup is there, Mazzulla wants him taking it.

10 turnovers in a half, 7 in a 4th quarter is not bad shooting luck - it is the Celtics struggling to execute against a tough defense. Drives into traffic that lead to forced layups, either because the driver chooses not to pass or because his teammates are not where they should be to allow him to pass, are the Celtics not doing what they need to do. Taking an open 3 early in the clock when there is an oportunity to drive and create a mismatch is also not playing right. All of these happened last night as the Thurnder came back and then put the game away.

When the Celtics offense is executing well, it is pretty common to see a Celtic with an open 3 pass around the perimiter to a teammate with an even more open three. And these passes don't always happen according to any hierarchy. Pritchard eith his team leading 42% and Tatum with his All-NBA status will make these passes. Players like Holiday, Horford, and Brown (all shooting below 36% will receive these passes). That fact that they do this belies any argument that all threes are trhe same or that any time a three is there, the Celtics are supposed to take it.

They did not control everything they could control in this game, and thta is part of why they lost. Or, OKC's defense took it from them.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Still healthy?

Good.

Then I'm still not worried. Shit, most of us would have been happy with a 2-2 record on this road trip, and now we're lamenting they're only 2-1.

Can't win 'em all, they looked like a team that missed everything in the 3rd, and then tired legs caught up to them in the 4th. That's it.

Stay healthy.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Taking an open 3 early in the clock when there is an oportunity to drive and create a mismatch is also not playing right.

Yes, CJM has preached that they should stay true to their principles, but as mentioned above, these guys are humans and not robots and the natural human response IMO is that when shots aren't falling, maybe people try to force things at the rim. Not saying it's the correct thing but it's the natural thing and the Cs don't often have historically bad shooting nights (otherwise they wouldn't be historic) very often.

I mean they generated 20 wide-open 3Ps and shot 15% on them. That's not bad offense. I'll note that I don't have an easy way to look at game stats, but in C losses, they generate 21.4 wide-open 3Ps, make 6.9 of them at 32.2% while in C wins, those numbers are 24.6 / 9.2 / 41.4%. 20 / 3/ 15% is an outlier.

I also want to point out that the sentence I snipped from your post isn't what CJM wants. A big part of CJM's philosophy is if guys have an open look, they have to take it. Or, as he has said in the past, "Obviously you want to pass and move the ball, but when you pass up the first good look as good as defenses are in the NBA it’s harder to generate those when it’s late in the clock."

Hot or cold, these Celtics live by their 3-point principles

(And this from 2023 - Celtics launching 3s is invigorating Joe Mazzulla’s offense once again - The Athletic: "I think two things,” Mazzulla said after beating the Pistons in the final game before the All-Star break. “I think one, the confidence to not pass (up) open shots is important. … I think our possessions in the first six to eight seconds of the shot clock, we’ve gotten to our spacing, and we’ve gotten the first advantage or the first crossmatch in the first eight seconds. And so, when you do that, you’re able to generate a two-on-one, which usually is either a 3 or a layup. And so, we’ve made a recommitment to those first six to eight seconds, which I think has opened up a lot of opportunity for us."

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

I think both things can be true: OKC has a very good defense, and so the expected three point shooting from the Celtics was lower than the season average; AND, they missed a lot of shots they usually make; AND the physical defense coupled with lack of calls flustered them and led to a late game meltdown (the third in the past few weeks).

I also think the stats on how open they were are a little misleading because of OKC’s ability to close out. If you want to take an open three, you have to get it off a split second faster, which may lead to breakdown in shooting form.

But if they meet in the Finals healthy I’d still pick Celtics as favorites over seven games.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I also want to point out that the sentence I snipped from your post isn't what CJM wants. A big part of CJM's philosophy is if guys have an open look, they have to take it. Or, as he has said in the past, "Obviously you want to pass and move the ball, but when you pass up the first good look as good as defenses are in the NBA it’s harder to generate those when it’s late in the clock."

I think just watching the Celtics play suggests that this is not the case. I don't think good 3 point shooters would repeatedly pass up open threes as often as Celtic shooters do if Mazzulla didn;t want them doing that.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I think just watching the Celtics play suggests that this is not the case. I don't think good 3 point shooters would repeatedly pass up open threes as often as Celtic shooters do if Mazzulla didn;t want them doing that.

The only time I notice the C's passing up an open 3 is when there is even more open 3. Am I missing something?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The only time I notice the C's passing up an open 3 is when there is even more open 3. Am I missing something?

No, that's about right. But I think it happens a fair amount.

 

[lovegtm]

No, that's about right. But I think it happens a fair amount.

Yeah, the trigger isn't "is this open?" but rather "is there a 2-on-1"?

If there is, they're trained to pass if the 1 defender is closing to them, otherwise to shoot.

It's very elegant and has proved simple enough to work in the heat of the moment.

 

[lovegtm]

The 1-on-1 3s that Tatum and White take are a different decision process, and are intended to keep the defense honest so that it's easier to get it into rotation on other possessions.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Last nightit happened against a top notch defense in a game the Celtics came out fired up to win.

Joe doesn't train them to take threes or not to take threes. He wants them creating the best shots, whether threes or not. When Tatum takes the ball into the paint surrounded by 3 defenders, Mazzulla doesn't want him forcing a contested layup, he wants him kicking it out. If the open layup is there, Mazzulla wants him taking it.

10 turnovers in a half, 7 in a 4th quarter is not bad shooting luck - it is the Celtics struggling to execute against a tough defense. Drives into traffic that lead to forced layups, either because the driver chooses not to pass or because his teammates are not where they should be to allow him to pass, are the Celtics not doing what they need to do. Taking an open 3 early in the clock when there is an oportunity to drive and create a mismatch is also not playing right. All of these happened last night as the Thurnder came back and then put the game away.

When the Celtics offense is executing well, it is pretty common to see a Celtic with an open 3 pass around the perimiter to a teammate with an even more open three. And these passes don't always happen according to any hierarchy. Pritchard eith his team leading 42% and Tatum with his All-NBA status will make these passes. Players like Holiday, Horford, and Brown (all shooting below 36% will receive these passes). That fact that they do this belies any argument that all threes are trhe same or that any time a three is there, the Celtics are supposed to take it.

They did not control everything they could control in this game, and thta is part of why they lost. Or, OKC's defense took it from them.

Are you open to this possibility?

While OKC was hosting home games and sleeping in their own beds on their normal circadian schedule since before New Years, the Celtics on…..

Wed, 1/1 - Flew 1500 miles to Minnesota

Thurs, 1/2 - Played and beat Minnesota, Flew 1300 miles to Houston arriving at hotel (likely) around 3am

Fri, 1/3 - Played and beat Houston, Flew a quick 450 miles to Oklahoma City

Sun, 1/5 - Early 3:30pm game that despite this condensed schedule still came out fired up to win and dominated the best team in the WC on their home floor……until they ran out of gas in the 2H.

 

[Auger34]

Still healthy?

Good.

Then I'm still not worried. Shit, most of us would have been happy with a 2-2 record on this road trip, and now we're lamenting they're only 2-1.

Can't win 'em all, they looked like a team that missed everything in the 3rd, and then tired legs caught up to them in the 4th. That's it.

Stay healthy.

This is where I am. I can't get worked up about any regular season loss as long as the team stays healthy.

I still don't think anyone can beat them in a 7 game series.

 

[joe dokes]

This is where I am. I can't get worked up about any regular season loss as long as the team stays healthy.

I still don't think anyone can beat them in a 7 game series.

I think this is right. A lot of things have to go right/wrong (opponent/Celtics) for the Celtics to lose one game. I think the odds of both those happening four time in seven is pretty small.

 

[DGreenwood]

View: https://youtu.be/o3wVlviOYdk?si=cYJzBga8l6ITAnoq

 

[reggiecleveland]

That fourth quarter was the best they have looked in a month.
Some really good signs
1. They got back to defending the three, even when playing Kornet and Porzingis togther
2. Jrue was confident and making shots

 

[128]

That fourth quarter was the best they have looked in a month.
Some really good signs
1. They got back to defending the three, even when playing Kornet and Porzingis togther
2. Jrue was confident and making shots

How quickly the win over Houston on this road trip is forgotten.

 

[128]

Lots of hate for SVG in the game thread, but I enjoyed hearing him praise Luke, who contributes in myriad ways, many of which go unnoticed by other national guys.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Are you open to this possibility?

While OKC was hosting home games and sleeping in their own beds on their normal circadian schedule since before New Years, the Celtics on…..

Wed, 1/1 - Flew 1500 miles to Minnesota

Thurs, 1/2 - Played and beat Minnesota, Flew 1300 miles to Houston arriving at hotel (likely) around 3am

Fri, 1/3 - Played and beat Houston, Flew a quick 450 miles to Oklahoma City

Sun, 1/5 - Early 3:30pm game that despite this condensed schedule still came out fired up to win and dominated the best team in the WC on their home floor……until they ran out of gas in the 2H.

Yes, it is a good argument. I would have been more inclined to think this if the whole game had been a rough one instead of a great half followed by letting the game get away in the second half. But it could be right.

That fourth quarter was the best they have looked in a month.
Some really good signs
1. They got back to defending the three, even when playing Kornet and Porzingis togther
2. Jrue was confident and making shots

No Jokic on the other side helped, though. I might have said Q2 Minnesota was the best.