It's not the Celtics' fault that no other team deserves to be on the same floor as them.
National Celtics discourse
- Thread starter RorschachsMask
- Start date
The biggest problem with the arguing against the sixth foul is the play right before where Luka tackled Brown in the open court on a not so loose ball, but the refs swallowed the whistle because the take foul would have pretty much ended the game. Instead of smirking with getting away with murder, Luka got right up and got right in the ref's face that bailed him out. It was insane. It was like a kid screaming that didn't get the right color porsche for sweet sixteen. But Luka couldn't help himself.
So, I suppose, "what kind of shit-ass team goes on a 20-2 run in the 4th Q and LOSES?" was not a hypothetical he posed to himself?
I disagree with this. I think he always tries to find a new an interesting angle and he HATES tearing down players. He saw everyone tearing down Luka and tried to take the other line.
He consistently attacks any Boston success with "what ifs" in a way he simply does not do for other top teams.
I've been thinking a lot about this. To level set, I'm coming in as a "Easter and Christmas" C's fan - I'll watch/follow in the playoffs or if they're on TV but I don't make it a passion point. I also consume my sports media from here, Reddit, and occasionally Twitter. This is one of the most fascinating media/fan/reality interactions I've seen in a long time. Here, it was a pretty strong consensus that the Celtics were a very tough matchup for Dallas in a way that has proven out consistently - the Mavericks sell out in the paint and are struggling contesting both the drive and the three point shot due largely. You go to Reddit and despite the C's being a major betting favorite the Mavs won the snap "who is going to win this" poll based heavily on this media push of the Mavericks being a new team and how we can ignore all the info because the C's only went 10-2 vs. beat up teams (without Porzingis). And the series is playing out pretty heavily like folks here said and Vegas expected and the gap is just enormous.
I blame Tom Brady for a lot of this. As we always do.
I think there's been a lightning speed of change in sports analysis over the past 20 years or so - where we've gone from message boarding and Sportscenter to a more immediate need for takes that simultaneously encapsulate a complicated game with thirty different teams in a small bite while incorporating an unprecedented availability of metrics, film availability, and resources - and a consumer base which has people who will listen to a two hour podcast but are far more likely to read 140 characters or a 45 second clip. But you know what makes that easy to encapsulate?
Tom Brady.
Because Tom Brady (or Lebron James if you like) is one of a tiny number of human beings who can materially shift a complicated game around his will despite numerous factors not being in his favor. So we've had sports media in the new era divide - you have a small number of people who make their hay on really diving into the intricacies and a much larger number who is happy to say "I know all of this is happening but I am confident Tom Brady will cover up all of those bad matchups and have the game end in the the way I thin kit will". And the killer is this worked. It also worked to some extent for Lebron whose legacy is aging pretty impeccably as we look back at him with more modern and distant glasses, but sports analysis got so comfortable with not just the star narrative being the easiest...it was also often right. The Patriots can face the Seahawks in the Super Bowl and it can go in a way no one really thought and end on a defensive stop, but the reporter who said a Pats win because of Tom Brady doesn't care.
Where I think this is falling apart here is that modern sports analysis has gotten SO comfortable with stars and scrubs reporting and taking those lazy paths - and how often it's rewarded in the NBA in particular (and in the NFL tbh, a sports writer making predictions based purely on Patrick Mahomes II being the QB...unless Tom Brady is the opposing QB has done quite well for themselves), that when you get a series like this and it doesn't work, it becomes really hard to pivot off of it. Most people's general viewpoints going in were as follows
* Luka is a Tier 1 Superstar
* Kyrie is not a Tier 1 Superstar but has a "clutch" reputation
* J&J Have Not Proven Themselves in a Finals Setting and are below Luka on the superstar rankings
* The Mavericks had a tougher path.
So all of those narratives which are both easier to do and have recently been correct trend that way, and unless you want to really dedicate time and effort against it, it's just easier to go with it, easier to make any of those points and maybe be proven correctly and if you're wrong you probably don't need to answer to it because everyone else was saying it. Whereas if the Mavs did end up 3-0 or 2-1 right now you'd be in the minority and look dumb for betting against The Best Player in the Series (TM) .
With all of that said, I would hope this series would really highlight how flawed all of these "best players in the NBA" lists often are. Jaylen Brown is #25 on the Ringer's list. Above him are all three injured stars who weren't in those leadup series (Haliburton, Butler, and Mitchell), the injured player who swung a playoff series one way...and whose loss swung it the other way (Brunson), the oft injured player on a rival who never shows up in the playoffs (Embiid), and now the guard who Brown just sent out on fouls (Doncic). I'm absolutely not saying he should be above some of those names, but at some point, it has to be realized that with each team only having 8-9 playable rotation guys typically that availability and well rounded play is substantially more valuable than anyone in the national media wants to admit - and all this talk about Luka's fouls dooming the Mavericks is underscoring the fact that availability is king. At some point I would hope people who keep propping up guys who miss half the season or more and then have to miss time in the playoffs.
Sorry if that was a rant. I think a lot of this is that the media thinks by default a Top 3-5 player is by default a guy who will inevitably shift a series and more often it's only a Top 1 who can do that...or a Top 0.
I blame Tom Brady for a lot of this. As we always do.
I think there's been a lightning speed of change in sports analysis over the past 20 years or so - where we've gone from message boarding and Sportscenter to a more immediate need for takes that simultaneously encapsulate a complicated game with thirty different teams in a small bite while incorporating an unprecedented availability of metrics, film availability, and resources - and a consumer base which has people who will listen to a two hour podcast but are far more likely to read 140 characters or a 45 second clip. But you know what makes that easy to encapsulate?
Tom Brady.
Because Tom Brady (or Lebron James if you like) is one of a tiny number of human beings who can materially shift a complicated game around his will despite numerous factors not being in his favor. So we've had sports media in the new era divide - you have a small number of people who make their hay on really diving into the intricacies and a much larger number who is happy to say "I know all of this is happening but I am confident Tom Brady will cover up all of those bad matchups and have the game end in the the way I thin kit will". And the killer is this worked. It also worked to some extent for Lebron whose legacy is aging pretty impeccably as we look back at him with more modern and distant glasses, but sports analysis got so comfortable with not just the star narrative being the easiest...it was also often right. The Patriots can face the Seahawks in the Super Bowl and it can go in a way no one really thought and end on a defensive stop, but the reporter who said a Pats win because of Tom Brady doesn't care.
Where I think this is falling apart here is that modern sports analysis has gotten SO comfortable with stars and scrubs reporting and taking those lazy paths - and how often it's rewarded in the NBA in particular (and in the NFL tbh, a sports writer making predictions based purely on Patrick Mahomes II being the QB...unless Tom Brady is the opposing QB has done quite well for themselves), that when you get a series like this and it doesn't work, it becomes really hard to pivot off of it. Most people's general viewpoints going in were as follows
* Luka is a Tier 1 Superstar
* Kyrie is not a Tier 1 Superstar but has a "clutch" reputation
* J&J Have Not Proven Themselves in a Finals Setting and are below Luka on the superstar rankings
* The Mavericks had a tougher path.
So all of those narratives which are both easier to do and have recently been correct trend that way, and unless you want to really dedicate time and effort against it, it's just easier to go with it, easier to make any of those points and maybe be proven correctly and if you're wrong you probably don't need to answer to it because everyone else was saying it. Whereas if the Mavs did end up 3-0 or 2-1 right now you'd be in the minority and look dumb for betting against The Best Player in the Series (TM) .
With all of that said, I would hope this series would really highlight how flawed all of these "best players in the NBA" lists often are. Jaylen Brown is #25 on the Ringer's list. Above him are all three injured stars who weren't in those leadup series (Haliburton, Butler, and Mitchell), the injured player who swung a playoff series one way...and whose loss swung it the other way (Brunson), the oft injured player on a rival who never shows up in the playoffs (Embiid), and now the guard who Brown just sent out on fouls (Doncic). I'm absolutely not saying he should be above some of those names, but at some point, it has to be realized that with each team only having 8-9 playable rotation guys typically that availability and well rounded play is substantially more valuable than anyone in the national media wants to admit - and all this talk about Luka's fouls dooming the Mavericks is underscoring the fact that availability is king. At some point I would hope people who keep propping up guys who miss half the season or more and then have to miss time in the playoffs.
Sorry if that was a rant. I think a lot of this is that the media thinks by default a Top 3-5 player is by default a guy who will inevitably shift a series and more often it's only a Top 1 who can do that...or a Top 0.
I am not perceiving that. I think he has went in on the Wolves and he was more negative on Mavs after Game 1 then most of the ESPN crew. He also has never gotten into the Brown Tatum stuff which well I have mixed feelings about the Brown Tatum narrative. It was a stupid story but I do think he really has helped Tatum and Brown become better players especially on the road just becoming numb to this shit.
I grew up in Canada when the nba wasn't on tv. You had to read about ball. So much hoop history was about the tragic figures of Wilt and West unfairly defined their due by the lucky (10-0 game 7) Celtics. But all of these books included a Red quote mocking the writers and lighting up his cigar.
Edit
Also the media talking about the Cs easy path never ever mentioned the Lakers virtual bye to the finals in the 80s while the east was stacked.
Edit
Also the media talking about the Cs easy path never ever mentioned the Lakers virtual bye to the finals in the 80s while the east was stacked.
Yeah realize the Celts aren't at the top but have they cracked the top 10? 5? 3?
Celts have now had a 20 point lead in 49 of 99 games. 50 out of 100, with exactly 80 wins, sounds nice.
You shouldn't be sorry that was a fantastic write up.
There is no player in the NBA that could have replaced Luka to help the Mavs beat the Celtics. The best player to slide in is actually probably Tatum only because I just think they would have problems on the perimeter with Joker.
If you gave Spoelstra Tatum instead of Luka, I think he could have taken a couple of games. He would win the series if you switch Luka with Tatum. I think Luka is a better basketball player than Tatum but I think the Mavs were built to cover up Luka's worst tendencies instead of working his strengths.
I hate the way the Mavs are built but a lot of it is because Luka is so difficult.
Probably around 10. (Actually they will tie for 12th with 87 Lakers if they sweep)
Right now the Celtics are the best team in 20s
Summing up some numbers. Once the sweep is complete:
- 7th all time single season playoff net rating
- T-3 all time single season regular season net rating
- 7th all time total season winning percentage
- Longest win streak to ever end a season (11) - by a FULL SERIES
- 2nd team to ever go 8-0 on the road in the playoffs
We are witnessing all all time great team here.
Friday night headline: why Jayson Tatum's stock fell this year
- 7th all time single season playoff net rating
- T-3 all time single season regular season net rating
- 7th all time total season winning percentage
- Longest win streak to ever end a season (11) - by a FULL SERIES
- 2nd team to ever go 8-0 on the road in the playoffs
We are witnessing all all time great team here.
Friday night headline: why Jayson Tatum's stock fell this year
I found it. 7th
96 Bulls 87-13
97 Bulls 84-17
17 Warriors 84-16
86 Celtics 82-18
87 Lakers 82-18
15 Warriors 83-20
I just can't get there on the bolded. It's so, so hard to win against a good team offense when one guy is getting roasted repeatedly. You're going to run into a team like that at some point in a playoff run.
I also think that Tatum is actually better than Luka at putting a defense in rotation, when he focuses on it. That doesn't lead directly to gaudy assist numbers, but it's really valuable on a good team.
I guess, in both players and coaches, I just value the stuff more that takes you from 50 wins to championship-level. That's the hardest thing in basketball (it's why I also think that Brad should be ranked way ahead of someone like Presti).
I think one of the things that I think we don't hear talked about is that in basketball, going on these runs can, and probably often is, tiring. So, a team 'muscles up' if you will, and exerts a lot of energy to go on a 10-0 run. Well, isn't it a bit expected that after doing that, there is going to be a natural let down (I hate to even describe it that way) but basically where the other team counters?
It’s been mentioned, but Tatum is the Duncan of wings. Does everything well. Quiet and unassuming. The media didn’t like Duncan either.
And we are setting up a Spurs like run so the analogy fits well.
I think it could even be a Spurs run in the sense that there are years off between titles, but they still keep winning some.
Here is the thing, I completely agree with you. I think Tatum's weaknesses are so much harder to fix than Luka's. If I was the Mavs I would just play Awful Coaching clips over and over.
I mean I point to Hauser but look at how much doing the basics gets you. If Luka plays Sam Hauser defense, Luka is in the conversation for best player in the world.
Brad is the best GM in basketball right now. I don't think anyone would argue that.
This. Glad everyone is happy, but please no Lakers "balloons in the rafters" moments here. Let's finish the job first.
This was all true…before this year.
He did get into the Tatum Brown narrative on a podcast with Tim Bontemps, and he was fucking determined to get into it because Bontemps outright told him he didn’t want to talk about it multiple times.
he’s also got into the Tatum “superstar” debate a hell of a lot, frankly way more than I would have expected knowing his previous work.
And I don’t know if you listened to this podcast he put out yesterday but it’s embarrassing. There’s no other way to put it. Through the first 20 minutes he has spent a good 17 of them talking about Luka fouls and Celtics mistakes in the 4th quarter. He’s also repeatedly stated that the Celtics being up 3-0 in the goddamn NBA finals isn’t a top headline of the game.
If this was a podcast after the first round, whatever. It would be annoying but at least there’s a chance that maybe these bad habits he incessantly harps on him would actually hurt them. It’s not the first round, it’s the finals. They are up 3-0. There’s no boogeyman waiting in the next round to penalize them. It’s weird to continue to bring it up as if it’s some fatal flaw
I don't want to hear about injuries and easy path after 15 years of key playoff injuries to KG, Perkins, IT4, Kyrie, Hayward, Kemba, Jaylen, Timelord, Tatum, and now KP.
Probably cost us at least 2 titles.
KG alone cost us that. That 2009 team was an all time wagon and probably pushes 70 wins.
Strong agree. Although I do think that getting the proverbial monkey off their back could have a snowball effect.
This is the truth. You can carve out a niche as an expert analyst, but the bar is so much higher in terms of the effort you have to put in as you create the content, and right now it's a volume game. These people all have quotas to hit, etc., and are constantly logging on to this pod or that TV hit or that radio bump, that they have to just develop patter and run with it. It's just really hard to do all that AND watch the games really closely.
It's just deranged at this point. No one will accept anything except wire-to-wire 20-point wins. The Celtics break brains:
View: https://twitter.com/SethPartnow/status/1801254422258872744
View: https://twitter.com/SethPartnow/status/1801254422258872744
Tiny, Walton, McHale's foot in 87, not even mentioning Bias and Reggie.
Russel was hurt in both the years he didn't win, though he did play in 67.
Also as a coach it is one of the unwritten rules to never disparage a team that won when the opponent had injuries. All coaches, all teams, have had seasons derailed by injuries and if you accept that bad luck and keep playing you accept the good luck too.
It's crazy, too, because it doesn't acknowledge the 13 point comeback in the first, or the idea that the team strategy is to index on high scoring variance to build huge leads that are difficult to overcome entirely. Like, 21 point leads are difficult to sustain against the best competition (we're in the NBA finals) which is why you want a big buffer like, say, a 21 point lead to guard you against streaky opponent shooting.
Boston average margin of victory in their 3 wins against Dallas - 11 points
2023 champ Denver average margin of victory over a far inferior opponent in Miami - 11 points
2023 champ Denver average margin of victory over a far inferior opponent in Miami - 11 points
Yes, but unless it's only an Unstoppable 2-Man Game if it's from the Rockée region of Denver. Anything else is just sparkling top-8 players.
I didn't realize how much worse Luka's body had gotten the past few years. He's looks like he's 25 going on 40, compared to this kid. Completely insane contrast, when you look at what other stars have done with their bodies into their primes. Extremely damning:
View: https://twitter.com/8bonz/status/1801087994851635459
View: https://twitter.com/8bonz/status/1801087994851635459
Yeah, I get it. One of the things that amazes me - not just in sports but in life (and I'm not meaning this to be political at all) is that when I grew up, accuracy is important. Now, what's important is engagement - and frankly, accuracy doesn't really drive engagement
Outright lying is frowned upon but other than that - Got to have a Takz.
Hopefully some people here made some money off some of this (through betting).
Thanks. I guess I'll go listen to Windhorst instead.
The thing about Luka last night was.....
He didn't think he was getting the reach-in and push calls he deserved (mostly wrong, but yeah there were some missed calls). But his response was to petulantly keep pushing and committing fouls daring the refs to call him.....
But he could have gotten away with a ton, but he did the few things the refs HAVE to call. The Pritchard dumb foul... they let like 3 times go. The foul on White... just an obvious has to be called.
Then the two Brown drew... if Brown spins to the hoop and he hacks his arm... probably no foul... hook him and he falls down.. well gotta call something.... Try to take a charge 26 feet from the rim and the ballhandler hits the deck.... has to be a foul on somebody. If he lets him go by and the swipes for the steal... probably doesn't get his 6th, ref can ignore that.
He didn't think he was getting the reach-in and push calls he deserved (mostly wrong, but yeah there were some missed calls). But his response was to petulantly keep pushing and committing fouls daring the refs to call him.....
But he could have gotten away with a ton, but he did the few things the refs HAVE to call. The Pritchard dumb foul... they let like 3 times go. The foul on White... just an obvious has to be called.
Then the two Brown drew... if Brown spins to the hoop and he hacks his arm... probably no foul... hook him and he falls down.. well gotta call something.... Try to take a charge 26 feet from the rim and the ballhandler hits the deck.... has to be a foul on somebody. If he lets him go by and the swipes for the steal... probably doesn't get his 6th, ref can ignore that.
The missed call where he recklessly cut Brown off in transition was that level of egregious too, and somehow went uncalled.
The man was on tilt.
The best part he is shot up after the non call and screamed in the official's face about calls past. I will always believe this is what earned him the sixth foul.
Yeah, that's one reason I find the "could he ascend to become the world's best player?" discussions strange and off-base (aside from all the many other reasons): I look at him and see a guy who's going to be experiencing chronic knee and leg issues in the next few years. I mean, he's already having knee issues, but I think he's going to be in the Kawhi zone soon where he misses as many or more games as he plays and his team can never count on him being healthy. Unless he makes an abrupt conditioning change.
I can't even follow the logic at this point. The Celtics are so good that they should win every game by 20 and never even let the game get close? But they're not actually that good, because they can't execute in crunch time? Or we don't actually know if they're good, because they haven't beaten anybody good?
I'm not upset about the media coverage of this team, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the run they're on, but I do find it fascinating, because I really don't get it. This is a team that has been the wire-to-wire best team in the league this season. They have the best offense and the best defense in the league (I know Minnesota was number 1 by net rating, but the Celtics' versatility really should give them the edge). Their roster is made up of seemingly good dudes who don't get in trouble, who work hard and get better every single season.
And they do what all the smart basketball people say they want a team to do: they commit fully on the defensive end of the floor, up and down the roster; they share the ball on offense; they sacrifice their individual games for team success and they don't give a damn who gets the credit. They have a coach who's doing some really interesting, innovative stuff on offense and defense, like fleshing out the concepts of spacing and advantage creation with ideas from soccer, or letting his 6'3" point guard play free safety on defense.
Some of it I guess is familiarity breeding contempt, but some people talk about this team's past playoff failures like they're the Lob City Clippers - a flawed, joyless bunch that was brutal to watch and couldn't get over the hump because of real structural failures, a team that had to be blown up because it was never going to happen. The Celtics were just a relatively young team on the ascent who hadn't gotten there yet.
For all of their past success, this team's championship aspirations were always going to be tied to Jayson Tatum. Despite all the other really talented guys that have been on the roster over this 8 year stretch -- Kyrie, Hayward, Horford, Brown, Kemba, Porzingis, Holiday -- none of them have ever been good enough to be the best player on a championship team. It's only ever been about JT. He's been the only player on the roster capable of being the best guy on a title winner since KG and Pierce left town. And he's about to win his first title at age 26.
But the narratives persist. Just this morning, Ramona Shelburne wrote a column talking about how Tatum and Brown were redundant and an awkward fit together. I just don't see it; anyone watching the team knows that Tatum is the play initiator, and Brown the play finisher. Brown's job is to defend and score buckets; Tatum has the playmaking responsibility. And they each benefit from playing off each other.
I guess my disbelief in the coverage comes down to: if you say you enjoy basketball, I don't know why you wouldn't enjoy watching this team. And yet, the same people who have been complaining about "heliocentricity" for the past decade are the same ones wondering if Jayson Tatum is enough of an "alpha".
First response: View: https://youtu.be/he4OY6gJNX4?si=vOK_YHqDRxp2qi5g
Second response: just looking at the Tatum/Brown Celtics, the year’s team has both been criticized for chocking in prior years when they had so many injuries (even though this year’s team is fundamentally different) and criticized for how easy of a path they had this year. It’s hypocritical.
If he dropped 5% of body fat and worked on his lateral physicality and short-space footspeed, it's not out of the realm of possibility that he could be in the conversation about world's best player in a year or two, at least in the non-Wemby division. He could bring most of what Jokic brings and honestly more "primary shot creator" skills on offense. People do this. Not just professional athletes. Some of us have done this in a summer.
And then they do execute in crunch time, but now they shouldn't have been in crunchtime in the first place? (Which is what Partnow's asinine tweet is saying).
I think the worst part to me is that they had the best offense in the history of basketball, but people still keep nitpicking it. Like....an average Celtics possession this year was worth an open 3 for an elite shooter, but people are still mad that it doesn't look like what they want it to.
I think @Jimbodandy said it best elsewhere: discourse around offensive players has completely deteriorated. No one knows how to analyze anything except "guy with 62% TS draws 2 to the ball and passes for an open 3 or lob." Anything outside that or mildly innovative is criticized for not matching that pattern, even if it's THE BEST OFFENSE IN THE HISTORY OF BASKETBALL.
He almost was this guy 3-4 years ago, and then decided that he liked beers more.
I reckon the problem is that he can continue to get bigger and bigger up to a point and it benefits his offensive game, because he's so big and strong now that he can overpower a lot of players whom he would have had to work harder to beat when he came into the league. So, it's probably easy to rationalize not making any real change to his habits until it gets glaringly obvious that one is needed. (This is pure armchair psychology on my part, though— for all I know, he'll come back radically slimmed down at training camp next year).
This is spot on, but I don't even fully understand why people don't think it's aesthetically pleasing. I get that they're not the prime Warriors in terms of ball movement, but every player on the floor can shoot, pass, dribble, and move well off the ball. It makes for a really interesting, unique offense with a lot of passing and ball movement. People describe them as iso-heavy, and I guess when they're mismatch hunting it can look like that, but every team downshifts to that type of offense in the playoffs. Describing them as a Tatum/Brown, your-turn-my-turn iso offense while everyone else stands around and watches isn't even remotely accurate.
I think it's because their offense has an economy of movement, and doesn't have as much running around as peak Warriors, or as much ball-pinging-passing as the 2014 Spurs.
But, at the same time, it doesn't have the obvious chessboard quality of peak LeBron/Harden/Luka heliocentric offenses, where the ballhandler puts the defense in a bind, and the play finishes with a shot, lob, or 3.
The Cs set things up, and then often attack in what looks like a straight iso if you're not watching carefully. That then leads to something directly, or a 2-on-1 after a couple passes. It's very beautiful if you know what to look for, but if you're tuned to look for 2014 Spurs or 2024 Luka, it's not very legible.
tldr; it's mostly a legibility thing imo
I think it's mainly an intersection of three different opinions:
1. A great team should have a clearly-defined alpha who is a consensus top-3 player (etc etc etc)
2. Shooting so many three-pointers is 'cheating'. A great team should be able to prosper while making baskets the old fashioned way
3. A great team shouldn't be so high-variance (e.g. beating opponents by 50 when the 3s are falling, struggling for spells on offense at other moments). They should have some kind of reliable bread-and-butter staple that they are the best at, such as running the pick and roll like those Jokic and Murray fellows in Denver
And first team to ever sweep last two series, longest win streak to ever end a season, 2nd team ever to go 8-0 road, and a 20 point lead in half their games.