Round 2: Celtics vs. Bucks

Who wins?


  • Total voters
    126
  • Poll closed .

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
9,499
Maybe I missed something....but where did anyone say (in SoSH, in the national media, on Boston talk radio, among your friend group...anywhere) that they thought Hayward was going to be like Durant?
Oh nowhere really, I just meant that I think everyone understood we were getting Robin, not Batman
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,259
I'm sure the reality is somewhere in between our two positions but Hayward was never a great shooter despite being touted as such.....he's a career 36% behind the arc propped up by his contract year numbers. If you polled your typical Celtics fan whose only exposure to the Celtics is the Globe and Felger/Mazz they would tell you he's an All-Star player and a great shooter based on the hype.....that's all I heard two summers ago both by some here, the radio, and out in the street. I mean even Chris Kaman made one All-Star game. A healthy Hayward may or may not have backed into one of the final slots in the East but I'd guess no.
Yeah he made one all-star but his last three seasons before coming to Boston he averaged:

20.3 points, 37.0% from three, 5.1 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 1.2 steals

In other words, a really, really, really good player. He hasn't really been close to that this year, and the last three games...well...that's an entirely different level of "not living up to what he's capable of".
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,667
Oh nowhere really, I just meant that I think everyone understood we were getting Robin, not Batman
I think a lot of people did recognize this......but a lot of others didn't. I've never seen a home crowd give a huge ovation to an opposing player about to hit FA that they expect to be Robin. There were a ton of fans in the Garden that night thinking Hayward was much more than that.

Yeah he made one all-star but his last three seasons before coming to Boston he averaged:

20.3 points, 37.0% from three, 5.1 rebounds, 3.8 assists, 1.2 steals

In other words, a really, really, really good player. He hasn't really been close to that this year, and the last three games...well...that's an entirely different level of "not living up to what he's capable of".
I agree in the bolded. Those offensive numbers however were swollen due to his role in that same offense which allowed George Hill as your #2 option to put up 17/4/3 and get paid handsomely for it.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
38,249
deep inside Guido territory
We saw him in Utah for many years though. He wasn't going to be used in the same manner in this offense was my point. I'm sure he'd have been better fully healthy, I'm not disputing that, only reiterating that the poor kid had no chance to live up to the expectations that this fanbase set......many of whom (not necessarily on this board of League Pass junkies) saw him play twice a year and only read the hype of him being an All-Star that winter.
If he hadn't gotten hurt, I don't think his numbers would have been as good as his Utah numbers. But I really think he would have been a really efficient player who would score in bunches at times when needed while making plays for others.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
3,930
Lisbon, PT
If he hadn't gotten hurt, I don't think his numbers would have been as good as his Utah numbers. But I really think he would have been a really efficient player who would score in bunches at times when needed while making plays for others.
He's also a very strong midrange player, which was why it was frustrating to see him not taking those shots when the team was cold from 3 and needed to stop runs just to keep the defensive intensity up.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,668
Santa Monica, CA
100% bingo right here.



The Utah offense ran everything through him the past couple of years. Even without last years injury his offensive numbers were going to take a hit with the ball in Kyrie's hands and so many other offensive-minded players on the Celtics compared to his Utah days when George Hill was 2nd on the team in FGA, followed by Rodney Hood and Derrick Favors.


I warned of the high expectations for Hayward two summers ago and while of course he has had the injury so many repeated that "All-Star" phrase as if he was a perennial 7x participant in the ASG......Hayward went to ONE All-Star game, in a contract year, with an entire offense geared toward him. Obviously he was a really good player in Utah and a nice #2 guy or really good #3 on a Championship level team but he was never going to live up to Celtics fans expectations even without the injury.
Brother, there's a lot of middle ground between "perennial all-star" and what Hayward has done in this series. A LOT. I think everyone here would be happy if he were a decent rotation player instead of Conner Henry, Jr.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,259
Brother, there's a lot of middle ground between "perennial all-star" and what Hayward has done in this series. A LOT. I think everyone here would be happy if he were a decent rotation player instead of Conner Henry, Jr.
Let me reiterate: The last three games, Hayward has played about 90 minutes, and has shot 4-18 (22.2%), and has averaged 5.7 points, 3.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 0.0 steals, and an average game score of 3.2, while piling up a +/- of -40.

So yeah, you're right. There's a TON of room between "all-star" and "last three games of Gordon Hayward". Because these past three games, he's been a bad, bad player.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
20,999
Hingham, MA
Brother, there's a lot of middle ground between "perennial all-star" and what Hayward has done in this series. A LOT. I think everyone here would be happy if he were a decent rotation player instead of Conner Henry, Jr.
The weird part is we have seen glimpses, like game 4 of the Pacers series followed by game 1 of this series. Those 2 games he shot a combined 13-17, 4-6 from 3, 33 points, 7 rebounds, 7 assists... he was aggressive especially in that game 4. But every time he looked like he was progressing this year he immediately took a step back, and the same has happened this series.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
3,142

Interesting point here. Starters are winning, it is only when bench players come in that stuff falls apart. And the starters barely play together.
Aren't the starters on the floor for much of the 3Q? That seems to be where it has all fallen apart. Also during that critical stretch in Game 4 when the Bucks starters were in foul trouble on the bench, it was a pretty good lineup on the floor that lost the game for us (I can't remember everybody, but I'm sure Kyrie and Horford were on the floor).
 

chilidawg

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 22, 2015
1,431
Aren't the starters on the floor for much of the 3Q? That seems to be where it has all fallen apart. Also during that critical stretch in Game 4 when the Bucks starters were in foul trouble on the bench, it was a pretty good lineup on the floor that lost the game for us (I can't remember everybody, but I'm sure Kyrie and Horford were on the floor).
The runs have all started mid/late 3rd quarter, about the time Hayward, Rozier and Co. start checking in.
 

saintnick912

GINO!
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 30, 2004
4,287
Somerville, MA
Not sure how to look this up but times when Hayward has looked outwardly bad to me in this series (all but Game 1), he's effectively been the 4 for the Celtics while the Bucks have 2 and sometimes all 3 of Giannis, Lopez, and Ilyasova out there. So a lot of long arms and not much room to work in the paint. Good adjustments by MIL as much as bad play by Hayward.
 

benhogan

Baynes Hogan (pending trade)
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
6,227
Santa Monica
Not sure how to look this up but times when Hayward has looked outwardly bad to me in this series (all but Game 1), he's effectively been the 4 for the Celtics while the Bucks have 2 and sometimes all 3 of Giannis, Lopez, and Ilyasova out there. So a lot of long arms and not much room to work in the paint. Good adjustments by MIL as much as bad play by Hayward.
yep, masquerading Hayward at the 4 is coaching malpractice, as it has been from Day 1 this season.

Brad went to his small ball binky against the wrong hombres'.

When the chips were down, in the 2nd halves, the Bucks easily got baskets against the Celtics while defending the paint. Credit to Coach Bud for not being afraid to go with Lopez, Mirotic, & Ilyasova with Giannis. Many Coaches would have played Giannis at the 5 and foolishly surrounded him with smalls.
 
Last edited:

AimingForYoko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
25,307
CT
this series has bummed me out in general but damn does GH make me sad. I always figured they'd go as far as he would and...I guess I was right. But I thought he would look better by now.

I can't be mad though because it was an injury and it wasn't his fault.

But fuck, I'm sad.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,057
Setting aside all the Kyrie stuff, the Celtics lost to a much better team - even if Irving played well this game, they likely weren't beating Milwaukee. There is clearly a pretty significant talent gap between these two rosters.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
59,411
Oregon
this series has bummed me out in general but damn does GH make me sad. I always figured they'd go as far as he would and...I guess I was right. But I thought he would look better by now.

I can't be mad though because it was an injury and it wasn't his fault.
Remember, it took Paul George a full year of playing to get back to being Paul George
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,057
no offense to the bucks but how are they this good i know 'greek' is a superstar but how did that team gel
j-man, they have one of the top five players in the game plus another two way allstar in Middleton and a borderline star in Brogdon. They added good supporting players and they made a huge upgrade at head coach. They are a very good team and will give whomever they play in the next round a tough go.
 

Spelunker

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
5,663
The way this place has always worked is that game threads are a place for immediate reactions, good or bad. Going to a game thread and pulling out quotes to try and shame posters is dirty pool. Also, it isn't moving the conversation forward in this thread. Let it go.
this series has bummed me out in general but damn does GH make me sad. I always figured they'd go as far as he would and...I guess I was right. But I thought he would look better by now.

I can't be mad though because it was an injury and it wasn't his fault.

But fuck, I'm sad.
I haven't been this depressed about a team since 2003.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
1,370
Arkansas
j-man, they have one of the top five players in the game plus another two way allstar in Middleton and a borderline star in Brogdon. They added good supporting players and they made a huge upgrade at head coach. They are a very good team and will give whomever they play in the next round a tough go.
thanks for the answer
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
There is clearly a pretty significant talent gap between these two rosters.
Not really. There is a shit ton of talent on a team that has Kyrie, Horford, Tatum, Brown, Smart, Morris, Rozier, Hayward, Baynes, etc.

Talent wasn’t even remotely the problem with the 2018-2019 Celtics.
 

JCizzle

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 11, 2006
9,499
Not really. There is a shit ton of talent on a team that has Kyrie, Horford, Tatum, Brown, Smart, Morris, Rozier, Hayward, Baynes, etc.

Talent wasn’t even remotely the problem with the 2018-2019 Celtics.
I think everyone after Brown in that lineup is kinda meh or situational. Rozier kinda sucks honestly. Hayward is obviously hurt/recovering/whatever.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
I think everyone after Brown in that lineup is kinda meh or situational. Rozier kinda sucks honestly. Hayward is obviously hurt/recovering/whatever.
All those guys have had stretches of being very effective.

The Bucks roster is better but the Celtics roster had more talent than they showed. We clearly did overrate the talent though. Or at least I did.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,057
Not really. There is a shit ton of talent on a team that has Kyrie, Horford, Tatum, Brown, Smart, Morris, Rozier, Hayward, Baynes, etc.

Talent wasn’t even remotely the problem with the 2018-2019 Celtics.
The Celtics didn't have another consistent outside shooter who could have spaced the floor against the Bucks.

Their defense was spectacular and they keyed on Kyrie (the hot takes aren't accounting or the fact that Milwaukee smartly decided that if they could take Irving away, the C's would struggle) forcing him into many of his bad shots. You won't hear any analysis of the strategy in the hot-takey "Byrie" thread but when a team depends heavily on one player for most of their offense, its a recipe for disaster in the playoffs. The Bucks consistently took away his favorite spots on the floor, packed the paint and forced Boston to shoot jumpers. Kyrie didn't not show up or quit. The Bucks flat out stopped him.

Of course, it needs to be said that Boston obliged by running ISOs, shooting early and often and essentially playing heroball on offense. Meanwhile, their defense, which was good for stretches in the games and even this evening, just wasn't consistent enough.

Budenholzer did a fantastic job with this team.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
The Celtics didn't have another consistent outside shooter who could have spaced the floor against the Bucks.

Their defense was spectacular and they keyed on Kyrie (the hot takes aren't accounting or the fact that Milwaukee smartly decided that if they could take Irving away, the C's would struggle) forcing him into many of his bad shots. You won't hear any analysis of the strategy in the hot-takey "Byrie" thread but when a team depends heavily on one player for most of their offense, its a recipe for disaster in the playoffs. The Bucks consistently took away his favorite spots on the floor, packed the paint and forced Boston to shoot jumpers. Kyrie didn't not show up or quit. The Bucks flat out stopped him.

Of course, it needs to be said that Boston obliged by running ISOs, shooting early and often and essentially playing heroball on offense. Meanwhile, their defense, which was good for stretches in the games and even this evening, just wasn't consistent enough.

Budenholzer did a fantastic job with this team.
Don’t disagree with any of this but I think how this season played out is more of a roster construction issue vs. talent. The Celtics could absolutely use more perimeter shooters though, especially if/when Kyrie leaves.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
17,342
this series played out like the season. Game 1 showed what they are capable of, but they only achieved it every once in awhile, and otherwise they were trash.

If Tatum is going to keep listening to Kobe, send him to New Orleans. if they still want him.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
34,809
Kyrie's favorite spots on the floor are wherever Kyrie is when he has the ball in his hands.

This team never really had an answer for tough defense beyond setting one screen and shooting or setting one screen and making one pass to a guy who then shoots. Plagued them all season. Just no commitment to sharing the ball consistently unless the offense was running through Horford.
 

scottyno

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 7, 2008
4,747
Setting aside all the Kyrie stuff, the Celtics lost to a much better team - even if Irving played well this game, they likely weren't beating Milwaukee. There is clearly a pretty significant talent gap between these two rosters.
Isn't the entirety of that talent gap that the Bucks have a legit top 5 superstar and the Cs have a guy who thinks he's one but he's probably more like 20th? And that Giannis clearly does more to make the game easier for the rest of his teammates than Kyrie does. I'd take the Cs 2-15 over the Bucks 2-15 in a vacuum.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,839
Setting aside all the Kyrie stuff, the Celtics lost to a much better team - even if Irving played well this game, they likely weren't beating Milwaukee. There is clearly a pretty significant talent gap between these two rosters.
I'm not buying the talent gap argument. Giannis is the most talented player in the series. Kyrie is the second. Middleton had a good year, and is a first time all star, but is he really that much more talented than Tatum? Is anyone remaining on the Bucks better than AL? Bledsoe had a good season, but he's in the bottom half of starting PGs. I'll take Boston's roster over the Bucks all day, especially when Brogdon isn't playing.

Milwaukee maximized the talents of their players, in this series and all season, and Boston didn't. The Bucks executed a defensive scheme the last four games. Boston didn't. Milwaukee answered runs. Boston didn't. Milwaukee closed quarters wisely. Boston didn't. Milwaukee's bench shined. Boston's bench, including a max player and a PG that started in 11 playoff wins last season, sucked ass.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,057
I'm not buying the talent gap argument. Giannis is the most talented player in the series. Kyrie is the second. Middleton had a good year, and is a first time all star, but is he really that much more talented than Tatum? Is anyone remaining on the Bucks better than AL? Bledsoe had a good season, but he's in the bottom half of starting PGs. I'll take Boston's roster over the Bucks all day, especially when Brogdon isn't playing.

Milwaukee maximized the talents of their players, in this series and all season, and Boston didn't. The Bucks executed a defensive scheme the last four games. Boston didn't. Milwaukee answered runs. Boston didn't. Milwaukee closed quarters wisely. Boston didn't. Milwaukee's bench shined. Boston's bench, including a max player and a PG that started in 11 playoff wins last season, sucked ass.
Middleton is most definitely a better player than Tatum at this point - this isn't to say that Tatum won't surpass him at some point soon. However if you ask any objective person with NBA knowledge whom of the two you would take to win right now, I would be willing to bet the majority select Middleton.

As for Horford, he is a spectacular player but he is not a scorer, especially not at volume. I also think Brown is very good as is Smart. But neither of them can score consistently enough to ease the burden on the Celtics offense.

Finally, I don't want to go player by player but the Bucks were a better team by just about every metric. You can disagree but they are moving on and Boston is not.

As for the bench, I will agree with you that they sucked but what Rozier did last year is kind of irrelevant. Nobody saw it coming and the league is one of adjustments, especially in the playoffs. This year, teams were ready for Rozier and as others (including you IIRC) have noted that the packed roster definitely contributed to his and others underperformance.

But I stand by my statement that the talent gap is fairly large and the results were borne out on the floor, even when Giannis sat.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
Middleton is most definitely a better player than Tatum at this point - this isn't to say that Tatum won't surpass him at some point soon. However if you ask any objective person with NBA knowledge whom of the two you would take to win right now, I would be willing to bet the majority select Middleton.

As for Horford, he is a spectacular player but he is not a scorer, especially not at volume. I also think Brown is very good as is Smart. But neither of them can score consistently enough to ease the burden on the Celtics offense.

Finally, I don't want to go player by player but the Bucks were a better team by just about every metric. You can disagree but they are moving on and Boston is not.

As for the bench, I will agree with you that they sucked but what Rozier did last year is kind of irrelevant. Nobody saw it coming and the league is one of adjustments, especially in the playoffs. This year, teams were ready for Rozier and as others (including you IIRC) have noted that the packed roster definitely contributed to his and others underperformance.

But I stand by my statement that the talent gap is fairly large and the results were borne out on the floor, even when Giannis sat.
It just isn’t but we can agree to disagree. Nobody was concerned about the Celtics’ talent vis-a-vis the Eastern conference competition before the season. Just because the pieces didn’t fit well doesn’t mean talent was the issue. It just wasn’t. It was primarily a roster construction issue.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,057
It just isn’t but we can agree to disagree. Nobody was concerned about the Celtics’ talent vis-a-vis the Eastern conference competition before the season. Just because the pieces didn’t fit well doesn’t mean talent was the issue. It just wasn’t. It was primarily a roster construction issue.
I agree that roster construction and chemistry played a role in how the season went for Boston. But statistically and by W/L, Milwaukee was a more talented team it wasn't really close.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
I agree that roster construction and chemistry played a role in how the season went for Boston. But statistically and by W/L, Milwaukee was a more talented team it wasn't really close.
No, statistically and by W/L they were a better team. Milwaukee won more games than Golden State. They must have been more talented.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,057
No, statistically and by W/L they were a better team. Milwaukee won more games than Golden State. They must have been more talented.
OK throw out W/L.

Who were two of the top five teams in Adjusted O-Rating this year? Who were the two top teams in adjusted net rating?

I won't answer those directly because you know where I am going but Boston was 10th in adjusted O-rating (mostly because their scoring came from just one guy) and 7th in adjusted D-rating. These are stats that were compiled over 82 games so the sample is pretty large.

Now I don't deny the Celtics may have underperformed but I would be shocked if you could prove the delta between them and the top teams was all underperformance.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
OK throw out W/L.

Who were two of the top five teams in Adjusted O-Rating this year? Who were the two top teams in adjusted net rating?

I won't answer those directly because you know where I am going but Boston was 10th in adjusted O-rating (mostly because their scoring came from just one guy) and 7th in adjusted D-rating. These are stats that were compiled over 82 games so the sample is pretty large.

Now I don't deny the Celtics may have underperformed but I would be shocked if you could prove the delta between them and the top teams was all underperformance.
I’m sorry but the burden of proof is on you to tell me how a team that couldn’t beat the Celtics last year without Kyrie and Hayward somehow got a ton more talented over the summer.

They made some nice additions with Bropez, Mirotic, and Connaughton but none of these guys are all-stars. They got a much better coach and some guys developed more. But that doesn’t say much about the talent level.

Nobody is disputing that the Bucks are the better team.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
28,057
I’m sorry but the burden of proof is on you to tell me how a team that couldn’t beat the Celtics last year without Kyrie and Hayward somehow got a ton more talented over the summer.

They made some nice additions with Bropez, Mirotic, and Connaughton but none of these guys are all-stars. They got a much better coach and some guys developed more. But that doesn’t say much about the talent level.

Nobody is disputing that the Bucks are the better team.
The burden is on me? Have you even looked at the data? They are objectively better than they were last year and, as you note, their coach is a huge upgrade. Let's agree to disagree. We aren't going to change each others minds here.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
17,667
Replacing Jason Kidd with Coach Bud was huge.
It was much more than Bud for Kidd. Bledsoe came over from Phoenix out of shape after recovering all summer from an injury while not having a training camp with his teammates which is important for a PG. They also traded in Jabari, Henson, Dellavadova, Maker, and Jason Terry’s corpse for Lopez, Ilyasova, Mirotic, Hill, and got a find in Connaughton.

Their second unit and complementary pieces were much much improved this year and the new personnel was a perfect fit for Buds system. Let’s not discount the leap Giannis took also.

I’m sorry but the burden of proof is on you to tell me how a team that couldn’t beat the Celtics last year without Kyrie and Hayward somehow got a ton more talented over the summer.

They made some nice additions with Bropez, Mirotic, and Connaughton but none of these guys are all-stars. They got a much better coach and some guys developed more. But that doesn’t say much about the talent level.

Nobody is disputing that the Bucks are the better team.
For one, this was a completely different Bucks team than last year. They upgraded their entire roster, Giannis through personal development and Bledsoe being healthy and in shape while being there in camp, with the exception of Middleton who is the same real good player while adding a coach whose system on both sides of the ball was a perfect fit with their personnel.

We had the same players plus Kyrie and a recovering Hayward paired with an entire cast of impending free agents who didn’t fit well together. The Celtics may or may not have underachieved in the regular season depending on ones definition.....but in the playoffs they were the same flawed team they were for 82 games and nowhere near the Bucks league as we saw in these 5 games.
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
It was much more than Bud for Kidd. Bledsoe came over from Phoenix out of shape after recovering all summer from an injury while not having a training camp with his teammates which is important for a PG. They also traded in Jabari, Henson, Dellavadova, Maker, and Jason Terry’s corpse for Lopez, Ilyasova, Mirotic, Hill, and got a find in Connaughton.

Their second unit and complementary pieces were much much improved this year and the new personnel was a perfect fit for Buds system. Let’s not discount the leap Giannis took also.



For one, this was a completely different Bucks team than last year. They upgraded their entire roster, Giannis through personal development and Bledsoe being healthy and in shape while being there in camp, with the exception of Middleton who is the same real good player while adding a coach whose system on both sides of the ball was a perfect fit with their personnel.

We had the same players plus Kyrie and a recovering Hayward paired with an entire cast of impending free agents who didn’t fit well together. The Celtics may or may not have underachieved in the regular season depending on ones definition.....but in the playoffs they were the same flawed team they were for 82 games and nowhere near the Bucks league as we saw in these 5 games.
Like I’ve said multiple times, Bucks were clearly the better team but the gap in raw talent between the Bucks and Celtics just isn’t that big. The Celtics had the talent to be a much better team than they ended up being. Many people thought this was a 55-60 win team before the season and they probably would have been had they not had the corrosive chemistry issues.

The Celtics Westgate win total o/u was 57.5. Milwaukee’s was 46.5. Nobody saw Milwaukee being this good or Boston being this bad. Clearly, the consensus was wrong about both teams.

This wasn’t an Indy without Ola vs. Boston situation. The Celtics had the talent to be an ECF or NBA Finals team. Talent was never the issue this year.
 

RetractableRoof

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,240
Quincy, MA
What I expected (naively perhaps) coming into the season was last years commitment to playing style with the addition of Irving and at some point a repaired/reconditioned Haywire. I thought they would play the same brand of basketball, and the difference would be when it came time in tight games to make that clutch shot the ball would find Irving and he'd make his share of them - befitting his history of being able to make that shot. I expected Irving to want to be the player that in a tough moment would use his ability to get to the rim and break down the defense as a difference maker. What I didn't expect was Irving to take possession of the basketball and try to imitate early Lebron/Jordan in a "do everything myself" mode. The Celtics proved during last years playoff run (admittedly without the pressure of expectations) that there was talent available to allow Irving to pick his spots and be the difference maker - rather than simply try to put the team on his shoulders every minute he was on the court. Having said all that - I'm not sure how much of this issue is Stevens not convincing him to play within his framework, Stevens not adapting to what Irving was delivering, or just Irving needing to get through the "being the man" part of his professional growth. As part of that growth, he's missed that as fans in Boston, most value skill, talent and hardwork (which he's delivered) but when players talking about the play of the team predominantly think and use the word "I" instead of "We" - you better deliver or it is going to end poorly.

Good luck Danny... you are going to need it.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,573
Somewhere
The Celtics didn't have another consistent outside shooter who could have spaced the floor against the Bucks.

Their defense was spectacular and they keyed on Kyrie (the hot takes aren't accounting or the fact that Milwaukee smartly decided that if they could take Irving away, the C's would struggle) forcing him into many of his bad shots. You won't hear any analysis of the strategy in the hot-takey "Byrie" thread but when a team depends heavily on one player for most of their offense, its a recipe for disaster in the playoffs. The Bucks consistently took away his favorite spots on the floor, packed the paint and forced Boston to shoot jumpers. Kyrie didn't not show up or quit. The Bucks flat out stopped him.

Of course, it needs to be said that Boston obliged by running ISOs, shooting early and often and essentially playing heroball on offense. Meanwhile, their defense, which was good for stretches in the games and even this evening, just wasn't consistent enough.

Budenholzer did a fantastic job with this team.
Agreed on pretty much everything. I am shamelessly jumping on the Bucks bandwagon here on out, FWIW.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
16,363
Like I’ve said multiple times, Bucks were clearly the better team but the gap in raw talent between the Bucks and Celtics just isn’t that big.
The issue people are having is that no one knows what you mean by "raw talent". Do you mean potential? Where people might be picked if drafted? Who would win a skills competition? Something else?

MIL was a better team. One of the reasons is because they were more consistent. The NBA playoffs are super tough on young players. Other than OKC (and we know what happened to them), what other championship or even finals team that gave so many minutes to guys 22 years old and younger?

The most consistent positive players on BOS were Al and MaMo. That's not going to be a great way to win.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
3,464
There's a clear and undeniable talent gap on defense. One team had a plan and could execute that plan and the other team played strong team defense in one game out of five and otherwise looked completely clueless.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
The issue people are having is that no one knows what you mean by "raw talent". Do you mean potential? Where people might be picked if drafted? Who would win a skills competition? Something else?

MIL was a better team. One of the reasons is because they were more consistent. The NBA playoffs are super tough on young players. Other than OKC (and we know what happened to them), what other championship or even finals team that gave so many minutes to guys 22 years old and younger?

The most consistent positive players on BOS were Al and MaMo. That's not going to be a great way to win.
No, I mean production. Kyrie, Horford, Smart, Tatum, Brown, Morris, Baynes, Rozier, Hayward have all been productive starting-calibre players in the NBA. You have a top 15-20 guy, former all-stars, top draft picks with successful seasons under their belts, etc.

If you line up these guys in fantasy basketball fashion, they match up quite well with Milwaukee. Again, everyone thought it was Boston or Toronto as top team heading into the season. Almost nobody had Milwaukee. They were seen to be in the 2-4 range.

Of course, this isn’t fantasy basketball. Experience, chemistry, personnel fit, etc. all matter. As HRB/DeJesus have pointed out, they were far superior in that regard. I’m literally only contesting the talent gap point.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
31,084
There's a clear and undeniable talent gap on defense. One team had a plan and could execute that plan and the other team played strong team defense in one game out of five and otherwise looked completely clueless.
I’ll agree with that. Defense the gap is much larger than on offense.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
9,573
Somewhere
Credit belongs to the Bucks' team building philosophy as well. The whole league, including the Celtics, has jumped heavily into the small ball philosophy and switch-everything defense. So why not go big, defend the paint and dare opponents to shoot with their 3rd, 4th options? It might not work against Golden State, but that's just one team. An added bonus is that they were able to get Lopez and Mirotic for nothing.