Why in the world would you leave that game? Trying to beat traffic? That's ridiculousHow weird is it facing a defense like this in the ECF lol
also
View: https://twitter.com/MaryWCVB/status/1793109619235316050
Why in the world would you leave that game? Trying to beat traffic? That's ridiculousHow weird is it facing a defense like this in the ECF lol
also
View: https://twitter.com/MaryWCVB/status/1793109619235316050
I get what they're saying but that is really annoying to read.Dave DuFour: "We've seen this with the Celtics, where it gets close and late scenarios, and they just stop doing the things that made them successful to beat ya. Boston couldn't handle prosperity at any of nine points in the game, throwing the ball all over the gym like the prime Warriors but just not as good as the prime Warriors, so the Pacers were allowed to come back... I'm thoroughly annoyed by that game."
Mo Dakhil: Boston does what Boston does. They show us where they're really good, and they show us why none of us actually believe them. In the same game, they do the thing where they start out the game, 12-0 run, look amazing, they're out-pacing the Pacers, flying up the court, doing all these great things. And then the last 5 minutes of the first half? Shitty offense. And it's frustrating because, they have SO much talent. And so I'm gonna dump on the team that won, and look like the asshole. But you're frustrated with it."
Zero credit to Brown's amazing play to get a turnover on the inbound with 8.5" left, which was the first of two absolute miracles we needed, or for his subsequent catch-and-shoot, for which we need a stronger word than "clutch". Zero credit to Jrue forcing a mistake on Haliburton. No, no, it's gotta be the Pacers' fault! Who do I blame for allowing this calamity to happen?!
You just keep doing the same thing because it will stop working. If they have figured out a way that no other team has to hit 70% of midrange jumpers for an extended period without a team of Michael Jordans, they will win the whole thing. But I would bet against it continuing.Exactly, and it was hailed as one of the most incredible shooting performances in the history of basketball. To nearly equal it (for a half) in the next game against a better defensive team should not have been possible. And yet, it happened. That becomes the fight then - how does one defend against something that shouldn't work, and should be allowed to happen by the defense, because it's unlikely to work.
They can't make macro changes now, "going small", since it wasn't used during the season. I'm not suggesting they make a wholesale rotation change.I keep harping on this, but people prefer macro adjustments (lineup change! no drop!) to more micro ones because the latter are opaque to them, even though they're far more impactful generally.
Sam Hauser has varied between 7th & 8th man all season due to matchups.This roster has 6 all-star or former all-star caliber players, 2 of them are bigs. The 7th man is an undersized point, the 8th man is another big, the 9th man is a wing....
At this point, I'm like JB: just lean into being the villain.National narrative: "the Pacers choked this game away!"
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzAb6OL1Uss
Or:
The Athletic podcast
Dave DuFour: "We've seen this with the Celtics, where it gets close and late scenarios, and they just stop doing the things that made them successful to beat ya. Boston couldn't handle prosperity at any of nine points in the game, throwing the ball all over the gym like the prime Warriors but just not as good as the prime Warriors, so the Pacers were allowed to come back... I'm thoroughly annoyed by that game."
Mo Dakhil: Boston does what Boston does. They show us where they're really good, and they show us why none of us actually believe them. In the same game, they do the thing where they start out the game, 12-0 run, look amazing, they're out-pacing the Pacers, flying up the court, doing all these great things. And then the last 5 minutes of the first half? Shitty offense. And it's frustrating because, they have SO much talent. And so I'm gonna dump on the team that won, and look like the asshole. But you're frustrated with it."
Zero credit to Brown's amazing play to get a turnover on the inbound with 8.5" left, which was the first of two absolute miracles we needed, or for his subsequent catch-and-shoot, for which we need a stronger word than "clutch". Zero credit to Jrue forcing a mistake on Haliburton. No, no, it's gotta be the Pacers' fault! Who do I blame for allowing this calamity to happen?!
How were they identified as “Celtic fans who left early”? Couldn't they just be Celtic fans? i don’t see anyone clutching ticket stubs.Why in the world would you leave that game? Trying to beat traffic? That's ridiculous
There’s no such thing as a ticket stub any more.How were they identified as “Celtic fans who left early”? Couldn't they just be Celtic fans? i don’t see anyone clutching ticket stubs.
I get why it's frustrating to not see/hear Boston get any credit for taking advantage of the opportunity, but the Pacers DID choke this game away. Haliburton had a couple of real boneheaded plays, Carlisle didn't cover himself in glory in the final minute, and Indy snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I'm a big believer in the idea that most games are equal parts won and lost, but it's ok that sometimes the story will tilt one way or the otherNational narrative: "the Pacers choked this game away!"
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzAb6OL1Uss
Or:
The Athletic podcast
Dave DuFour: "We've seen this with the Celtics, where it gets close and late scenarios, and they just stop doing the things that made them successful to beat ya. Boston couldn't handle prosperity at any of nine points in the game, throwing the ball all over the gym like the prime Warriors but just not as good as the prime Warriors, so the Pacers were allowed to come back... I'm thoroughly annoyed by that game."
Mo Dakhil: Boston does what Boston does. They show us where they're really good, and they show us why none of us actually believe them. In the same game, they do the thing where they start out the game, 12-0 run, look amazing, they're out-pacing the Pacers, flying up the court, doing all these great things. And then the last 5 minutes of the first half? Shitty offense. And it's frustrating because, they have SO much talent. And so I'm gonna dump on the team that won, and look like the asshole. But you're frustrated with it."
Zero credit to Brown's amazing play to get a turnover on the inbound with 8.5" left, which was the first of two absolute miracles we needed, or for his subsequent catch-and-shoot, for which we need a stronger word than "clutch". Zero credit to Jrue forcing a mistake on Haliburton. No, no, it's gotta be the Pacers' fault! Who do I blame for allowing this calamity to happen?!
This is fair--didn't realize his +/- was so good. I probably am overreacting to his defensive issues in these playoffs, and maybe the lack of 3s, which is my fault.On Hauser, even though he's not hitting shots and barely playing passable defense, his gravity is still impacting the game and making things easier for everyone else on offense. It seems like teams are making a much more concerted effort to stick to him when he moves or screens, and even with the noise, it's noteworthy that he's first in the entire league in playoff point differential (+18.4 per 100 possessions). Even when he's not scoring, he's got real value on the court.
I would too, but it didn't change my expression every time Siakam calmly tossed in another midrange jumper. He was 4-5 on them in the 4th.You just keep doing the same thing because it will stop working. If they have figured out a way that no other team has to hit 70% of midrange jumpers for an extended period without a team of Michael Jordans, they will win the whole thing. But I would bet against it continuing.
This has been a two-year trend with Horford. Last year he shot 44.6% from three in the regular season, 29.8% in the playoffs. This year he was 41.9% in the regular season, 30.6% in the playoffs. I don't think it can be explained by shot quality, if anything Horford seems to be left alone beyond the arc even more often than in the regular season. Obviously 44% in 2023 was an unsustainably high pace, but the playoff numbers are well below his skill level. Hopefully there will be some reversion to the mean.Seems like Horfords 3PA volume has been very high during the playoffs. With unfortunately, a tick decrease in accuracy. A few more of those going in would make these leads more comfortable.
Hauser has been 8th I guess that is accurate, but Kornet played 63 games at 16 MPG, so he was pretty close to Hauser(22 MPG).Sam Hauser has varied between 7th & 8th man all season due to matchups.
Luke is getting minutes now entirely due to KPs injury. He has pretty firmly been the 9th man/3rd string Center with help from Queta/Tillman.
We saw Mitchell really take advantage of Al on PnR....I posted the 1.65 points/possession ESPN identified. Indiana targeted the same, unsurprisingly. Celtics had a few responses - pulling in JT and JB more to matchup and the zone, which may or may not repeat but illustrates that junk defenses and change may be part of the plan game to game. But yeah, getting Al in space is a thing and will continue to be.It's also an example of a big sexy macro adjustment that probably ends up being less impactful than the micro ones they'll be making based on smaller things on film.
I think we can point to probably two things here. First, he may be taking more threes that are not as wide open. In the regular season, it seemed like Al would pass up a three unless he was WIDE open, balanced, and in his spot. With defensive intensity up in the playoffs a somewhat contested corner three with 8 seconds left may be the best shot they get on that possession. Al's a smart and intuitive player and based on positioning/close outs he may see that shot as the team's best option for points on any given possession. With Indy too, I'm curious if he's also not getting the ball on the swing a touch later in the shot clock because of the full court ball pressure. Then there is age and usage. He's playing big minutes late in his career and the legs aren't what they used to be.This has been a two-year trend with Horford. Last year he shot 44.6% from three in the regular season, 29.8% in the playoffs. This year he was 41.9% in the regular season, 30.6% in the playoffs. I don't think it can be explained by shot quality, if anything Horford seems to be left alone beyond the arc even more often than in the regular season. Obviously 44% in 2023 was an unsustainably high pace, but the playoff numbers are well below his skill level. Hopefully there will be some reversion to the mean.
Good point. Hauser has been 41.7% on 3s (small volume) and is probably their best 3pt shooter in movement. He's dragging defenders around the courtOn Hauser, even though he's not hitting shots and barely playing passable defense, his gravity is still impacting the game and making things easier for everyone else on offense. It seems like teams are making a much more concerted effort to stick to him when he moves or screens, and even with the noise, it's noteworthy that he's first in the entire league in playoff point differential (+18.4 per 100 possessions). Even when he's not scoring, he's got real value on the court.
No need to guess. I watched every game this season. Hauser and Peyton shared the 7th & 8th spot. That's indisputable.Hauser has been 8th I guess that is accurate, but Kornet played 63 games at 16 MPG, so he was pretty close to Hauser(22 MPG).
The overall point is generally the same. This roster has multiple very good bigs, and isn't particularly well set up to play without one, and Hauser or Pritchard over Kornet isn't going to change that. There is no real advantage for the Celtics in going super-small EVEN when one of their bigs is out. The few times they tried it in the regular season it wasn't particularly good, and their 1 big and 2 big lineups were better.
It's particularly weird to me that it was a takeaway from last night given that the guys who would by default get more run in a super-small lineup (PP and Hauser) were horrendously bad and we should have been actively looking for ways to get them off the floor.
Tillman when he's available is an interesting option in this matchup, but super-small doesn't make much sense, it does nothing for the Celtics and helps IND who will then have a size advantage on the boards without any more challenge (maybe less) on offense.
Agree with all this. Having watched the game more now, I think the Cs come away mostly happy with how they took away 3s, particularly once they took Horford off Turner. They can contest the middies a bit better, but Indiana loses the math if that's their main shot.We saw Mitchell really take advantage of Al on PnR....I posted the 1.65 points/possession ESPN identified. Indiana targeted the same, unsurprisingly. Celtics had a few responses - pulling in JT and JB more to matchup and the zone, which may or may not repeat but illustrates that junk defenses and change may be part of the plan game to game. But yeah, getting Al in space is a thing and will continue to be.
And...
I do not think likely we do what many of us would like and play JT at the 5....we just haven't seen Celtics do that much defensively and I will be surprised (not shocked as we did see it in very small amounts) if we see it here. This goes way back philosophically---remember Brad playing Amir Johnson a lot? I think they just don't want to go that small, at least not for a lot of minutes. And I agree with lovtgtm---it's easier to suggest than some of the more likely responses. We saw some tweaks last night, and there'll be more. Tillman playing more for purpose of resting Al I would support---unclear what their confidence level in him is now, though, given his absence from Cleveland series in any meaningful way. We just don't have a great answer here - there's no switchable healthy TimeLord to plug in there, or whoever else.
But, I'm not sure how much it is a thing that Celtics have to blow up their rotation/scheme for either.
They need to do better overall defensively, and they need some tweaks to help Al and/or confuse those switches/PnR a bit to make it harder for Indiana. But some of it is just living with x vs Al in mid-range too. They had, I believe, two 15ish foot fallaways from Nembhard on Al. Not bad looks, but given Pacers offense those mid-range looks are not a terrible defensive outcome. So while I've been noting Al in space is an issue for a bunch of games now, I also understand why the Celts reaction is more muted....it is not (yet, at least) really collapsing the defense overall. I worry more about the PnR creating threes than I do some of what we saw last night, which led to more mid-range opps.
Yeah the narrative was that Al was getting "cooked" by Siakam and Nembhart on those mid-range shots in the 4th quarter, but I think that you live with those shots and hope and expect some kind of reversion to the mean. As someone else pointed out, you take 26 points for Siakam on 24 shots (no free throws) every time.I would too, but it didn't change my expression every time Siakam calmly tossed in another midrange jumper. He was 4-5 on them in the 4th.
Exactly. We keep talking about how Al's getting cooked when he's really not giving up a lot of easy shots. Siakam getting 26 on 24, Mitchell hitting step back 25 footers...the other guys are good too, and your goal is to force them into harder shots...which Al has been doing. I'm honestly confused.Yeah the narrative was that Al was getting "cooked" by Siakam and Nembhart on those mid-range shots in the 4th quarter, but I think that you live with those shots and hope and expect some kind of reversion to the mean. As someone else pointed out, you take 26 points for Siakam on 24 shots (no free throws) every time.
I think it's a revealed preference thing, where because the other team wants to attack him, people think it must be a win for them.Exactly. We keep talking about how Al's getting cooked when he's really not giving up a lot of easy shots. Siakam getting 26 on 24, Mitchell hitting step back 25 footers...the other guys are good too, and your goal is to force them into harder shots...which Al has been doing. I'm honestly confused.
And to be fair, Siakam missed a wide open 19 footer with a few minutes left. Nesmith missed a more contested one as well. Sometimes shots go in and sometimes they don't.Yeah the narrative was that Al was getting "cooked" by Siakam and Nembhart on those mid-range shots in the 4th quarter, but I think that you live with those shots and hope and expect some kind of reversion to the mean. As someone else pointed out, you take 26 points for Siakam on 24 shots (no free throws) every time.
Agreed, Somebody has to be the worst defender on the floor. In the starting 5... that's probably Al in PnR, with the bench it's probably PP in PnR or Kornet in PnR or if you have a skilled strong Big maybe Kornet in the post. In any case the best way to attack the Celtics is always going to be PnR going at the big. They have too many good on-ball defenders not to, you want to make things complicated, get them to make decisions on switch or not, whether to hedge, over or under, gum things up increase the chances of mistakes, and try to find the mismatches (size on PP, quickness on the bigs).I think it's a revealed preference thing, where because the other team wants to attack him, people think it must be a win for them.
That seems wrong to me. The bad Horford stuff for me is when he can't handle the PnR and gives up layups or 3s as a result. Those isos that always end in midrangers seem like wins for Boston to me.
Nobody clutches pearls these days like Celtics fans, and the national media writ large simply wants Boston teams to lose as payback for the insufferability of RedSoxNation!!!, Deflate-gate, TB12 is the GREATEST QB Eva!!!, whatever. Also an underdog story always gets more clicks even if they eventually revert to the mean and lose. Heck, I like the Indy story except for the fact that they're playing our guys right now.I get what they're saying but that is really annoying to read.
I mean....they won the game. Not only did they win the game but they completely snatched it from the jaws of defeat, in a way that could really kill the Pacers confidence. It's the Eastern Conference Finals.
How about a little bit of credit for getting the job done. This late in the season, there are no style points. A W is a W
In reading your posts, it would seem to suggest that you agree that Kornet should get less minutes than he got last night and Hauser get more? It seems to be what you're analysis says but I dont think I've seen you say anything definitiveRewatching the bad end to the 3rd that put the game back in play: I don't think they had significant issues with PP/Hauser physical limitations. It was nearly all bad communication and indecision.
That's to be expected, because they were toggling between a lot of things on the fly: whom Horford guarded, when to switch, mixing in zone, etc.
This is the tradeoff of in-game adjustments: it's tough to implement and get everyone the same page. I think they have a much better idea now of what Indy can and can't do, and what it feels like for certain things to happen at game speed.
I expect some improvement (but also some hiccups) in game 2. By game 3, I think they'll be mostly locked in on what Indy does, and offensive life will get a lot harder for the Pacers. The personnel is there, but a lot of things you can't work on until you actually play the team.
This is why I love postseason basketball so, so much more than regular season. The 7 games make it a different sport.
There's also some additional context. Indy seems to attack Horford more often when their usual offensive creator, Haliburton, is on the bench. So ordinarily, you would expect Boston's defense to win the matchup against an Indy offense without Haliburton. It also creates other positive outcomes for the Pacers, such as brining the Celtics best rebounder and away from the basket so that he's contesting the shot instead of boxing out Turner or whomever.I think it's a revealed preference thing, where because the other team wants to attack him, people think it must be a win for them.
That seems wrong to me. The bad Horford stuff for me is when he can't handle the PnR and gives up layups or 3s as a result. Those isos that always end in midrangers seem like wins for Boston to me.
Na, I think they can play Kornet, especially in zone. My point was that most of the defensive issues were execution/communication/feel for Indy, and less about specific personnel choices.In reading your posts, it would seem to suggest that you agree that Kornet should get less minutes than he got last night and Hauser get more? It seems to be what you're analysis says but I dont think I've seen you say anything definitive
Very good post.We saw Mitchell really take advantage of Al on PnR....I posted the 1.65 points/possession ESPN identified. Indiana targeted the same, unsurprisingly. Celtics had a few responses - pulling in JT and JB more to matchup and the zone, which may or may not repeat but illustrates that junk defenses and change may be part of the plan game to game. But yeah, getting Al in space is a thing and will continue to be.
And...
I do not think likely we do what many of us would like and play JT at the 5....we just haven't seen Celtics do that much defensively and I will be surprised (not shocked as we did see it in very small amounts) if we see it here. This goes way back philosophically---remember Brad playing Amir Johnson a lot? I think they just don't want to go that small, at least not for a lot of minutes. And I agree with lovtgtm---it's easier to suggest than some of the more likely responses. We saw some tweaks last night, and there'll be more. Tillman playing more for purpose of resting Al I would support---unclear what their confidence level in him is now, though, given his absence from Cleveland series in any meaningful way. We just don't have a great answer here - there's no switchable healthy TimeLord to plug in there, or whoever else.
But, I'm not sure how much it is a thing that Celtics have to blow up their rotation/scheme for either.
They need to do better overall defensively, and they need some tweaks to help Al and/or confuse those switches/PnR a bit to make it harder for Indiana. But some of it is just living with x vs Al in mid-range too. They had, I believe, two 15ish foot fallaways from Nembhard on Al. Not bad looks, but given Pacers offense those mid-range looks are not a terrible defensive outcome. So while I've been noting Al in space is an issue for a bunch of games now, I also understand why the Celts reaction is more muted....it is not (yet, at least) really collapsing the defense overall. I worry more about the PnR creating threes than I do some of what we saw last night, which led to more mid-range opps.
Wow, I would have not guessed that. It does make some sense though, due to the gravity that you mentioned. Even though his defense looked pretty bad out there last night, this series does seem like a better fit for him than ClevelandOn Hauser, even though he's not hitting shots and barely playing passable defense, his gravity is still impacting the game and making things easier for everyone else on offense. It seems like teams are making a much more concerted effort to stick to him when he moves or screens, and even with the noise, it's noteworthy that he's first in the entire league in playoff point differential (+18.4 per 100 possessions). Even when he's not scoring, he's got real value on the court.
You keep mentioning the 1.65 ppp number. Don't you think that's a little misleading? I mean first of all, it's on limited possessions. Second, we all know Mitchell hit a few step-back 3Ps on offense - which BOS wanted him to take. Just because he hit a few doesn't mean that the thought process was incorrect or Al is having defensive issues. No one can guard Mitchell's step-back: he either makes or misses.We saw Mitchell really take advantage of Al on PnR....I posted the 1.65 points/possession ESPN identified. Indiana targeted the same, unsurprisingly. Celtics had a few responses - pulling in JT and JB more to matchup and the zone, which may or may not repeat but illustrates that junk defenses and change may be part of the plan game to game. But yeah, getting Al in space is a thing and will continue to be.
NBA.com had IND with 111 possessions; BOS with 113. To get to the 1.143, IND had to have 112 possessions, so that number is probably from Synergy.I don't understand the 1.143 calculation. The Pacers had 99 FGA, as well as 21 turnovers. That's at least 120 possessions. They probably also had some possessions that resulted in free throws but not a FGA.
How is points per possession calculated?
Conventional wisdom used to be that an underdogs coming in after playing a long series had their best chance to "steal" a game in G1 when the favorites were rusty after a long layoff.Rewatching the bad end to the 3rd that put the game back in play: I don't think they had significant issues with PP/Hauser physical limitations. It was nearly all bad communication and indecision.
That's to be expected, because they were toggling between a lot of things on the fly: whom Horford guarded, when to switch, mixing in zone, etc.
This is the tradeoff of in-game adjustments: it's tough to implement and get everyone the same page. I think they have a much better idea now of what Indy can and can't do, and what it feels like for certain things to happen at game speed.
I expect some improvement (but also some hiccups) in game 2. By game 3, I think they'll be mostly locked in on what Indy does, and offensive life will get a lot harder for the Pacers. The personnel is there, but a lot of things you can't work on until you actually play the team.
This is why I love postseason basketball so, so much more than regular season. The 7 games make it a different sport.
Couple things to point out here. Kornet's minutes this season are really, really loaded with minutes in blowouts late in games. Hauser and PP have a bunch too, but Kornet basically saw minutes when Al or KP sat or in blowouts.Hauser has been 8th I guess that is accurate, but Kornet played 63 games at 16 MPG, so he was pretty close to Hauser(22 MPG).
The overall point is generally the same. This roster has multiple very good bigs, and isn't particularly well set up to play without one, and Hauser or Pritchard over Kornet isn't going to change that. There is no real advantage for the Celtics in going super-small EVEN when one of their bigs is out. The few times they tried it in the regular season it wasn't particularly good, and their 1 big and 2 big lineups were better.
It's particularly weird to me that it was a takeaway from last night given that the guys who would by default get more run in a super-small lineup (PP and Hauser) were horrendously bad and we should have been actively looking for ways to get them off the floor.
Tillman when he's available is an interesting option in this matchup, but super-small doesn't make much sense, it does nothing for the Celtics and helps IND who will then have a size advantage on the boards without any more challenge (maybe less) on offense.
Agreed on all of this. I'd say that BOS wasn't as much surprised at the IND pace/speed as they were simply "not used to it". It's a bit of an adjustment after a glacial pace rockfight team (Miami) and a half-court mostly ISO team (Cleveland).Conventional wisdom used to be that an underdogs coming in after playing a long series had their best chance to "steal" a game in G1 when the favorites were rusty after a long layoff.
I hope that is true.
As a corollary, it seems to me that after playing comparatively plodding teams like MIA and CLE, BOS was a little surprised at the speed IND runs their offense, which may have resulted in some of the confusion you mention.
Again, I hope that's true.
We see this so, so often in the NBA playoffs: it's one thing to know a team is fast, and it's another toAgreed on all of this. I'd say that BOS wasn't as much surprised at the IND pace/speed as they were simply "not used to it". It's a bit of an adjustment after a glacial pace rockfight team (Miami) and a half-court mostly ISO team (Cleveland).
Agreed on the "confusion" point here and by lgtm. If that gets cleaned up as the Cs get used to Indy's actions and personnel, fantastic. I agree that it's not an issue of Hauser and Pritchard not being playable. It's more that they just played shitty in game 1, especially Pritchard. He has been showing better all year, so it's probably still in there.
That PPP ESPN stats and info had was across a far larger data set (believe it was all playoff games) than the one quarter/ten or so (I think?) plays you broke down on this one. Kudos to you for doing that work, to be clear! However, I just don't think you reached the right big picture conclusion. To me, there's a lot of data, and a lot of NBA analysts smarter than me, saying the exact same thing here: the Horford PnR is a big issue and has been all along. We also have seen two different coaches with very different rosters and schemes focus on it, another indicator it's probably a real gap. That doesn't mean you have to agree--and maybe you'll be proven right. I do not think it is some sample size thing or misleading though.You keep mentioning the 1.65 ppp number. Don't you think that's a little misleading? I mean first of all, it's on limited possessions. Second, we all know Mitchell hit a few step-back 3Ps on offense - which BOS wanted him to take. Just because he hit a few doesn't mean that the thought process was incorrect or Al is having defensive issues. No one can guard Mitchell's step-back: he either makes or misses.
Of course getting Al in space is a thing. What else is IND (or CLE or MIA) going to do - go after Jrue or JT or JB or Derrick White?
I will give to you (and everyone else) that Al is the worst defender among the starting 5. I'll also point out that when KP comes back, he's going to be challenged on the perimeter too. But I don't think BOS is going to radically change their overall game plan in response to how Al is playing defense. As noted above, tweaks are fine and switching JB/JT on to Turner was probably a good idea but overall, without more, we're just going to have get used to watching Al defend guys 1 on 1.
Yeah it's one of the best parts of the 7-game series in the playoffs. It's like watching boxers figure each other out over 12 rounds or whatever.We see this so, so often in the NBA playoffs: it's one thing to know a team is fast, and it's another to
- see the ways they are fast against your specific personnel
- know the ways that tends to break down your defense
- implement detailed gameplans to handle those specific impacts of speed
One of my pet theories is that this is why "play harder" can be such an effective adjustment for good teams. After 1-2 games of learning an opponent, you can "play harder" in all the right ways--you simply can't do that until you have reps and film on the specific matchup. Over the course of a series, teams tend to grow like plants into each others' cracks.
Building on that, it's also a reaction problem: you know what to do, but you have to actually make the decision and do it in a fraction of a second. That's hard, and harder if you haven't been doing it or are surprised. For example, a quick switch to zone doesn't work because the opponent lacks knowledge of how to break the zone - it is that they don't quickly react with the right movements (guy cuts to foul line, others spread out, etc.) and then exeucte those moves/actions. So you lose a few seconds iwth guys seeing the zone at different rates, and then only 3 of the 5 make the adjustment, and then 1 of the 3 doesn't do the right thing and either shot clock hits zero or you turned it over. Most of the time they all knew what to do, but at game speed they couldn't collectively execute it. Ditto for the occasional trap or other action that forces you to react - it's hard. My belief is this is an advantage vet teams have a bit over younger ones - game has generally slowed down for them, so they are more quickly able to adjust. And they have seen it before, though it may take a couple quarters to re-energize their thinkingWe see this so, so often in the NBA playoffs: it's one thing to know a team is fast, and it's another to
- see the ways they are fast against your specific personnel
- know the ways that tends to break down your defense
- implement detailed gameplans to handle those specific impacts of speed
One of my pet theories is that this is why "play harder" can be such an effective adjustment for good teams. After 1-2 games of learning an opponent, you can "play harder" in all the right ways--you simply can't do that until you have reps and film on the specific matchup. Over the course of a series, teams tend to grow like plants into each others' cracks.
As a corollary, it seems to me that after playing comparatively plodding teams like MIA and CLE, BOS was a little surprised at the speed IND runs their offense, which may have resulted in some of the confusion you mention.
Again, I hope that's true.
Brown sort of said as much after the game.Agreed on all of this. I'd say that BOS wasn't as much surprised at the IND pace/speed as they were simply "not used to it". It's a bit of an adjustment after a glacial pace rockfight team (Miami) and a half-court mostly ISO team (Cleveland).
It's a series. I am confident that the Celtics will make the necessary adjustments so that the next win actually counts as a win.“We knew they were going to be fast. It didn’t surprise us, but it’s one thing watching them on film and then seeing it in person.
I think the Pacers are angry about the loss, but confident that they can hang with the Celtics, based on the belief that they will improve on 22 turnovers, that they demolished the Celtics bench, and that the pace at which they play will eventually wear down Horford and Holiday over the course of a 7 game series.I don't know what the Indiana Pacers equivalent of SoSH would be, but if I was on there I think I'd be pretty discouraged that the Pacers coughed up a pretty good opportunity to win a game at TD Garden. "Steal" isn't quite the right verb, because they would have earned it, but the Pacers need to win one in TD Garden and they blew a really good chance to do that last night.
For the Pacers themselves, though, I'm not sure they'll be that discouraged. They proved that they can hang with Boston and deserve to be on the same floor as the Celtics. So, I don't seem them being too down on themselves. I mean, after falling down 12-0 - I sort of expected the Pacers to simply melt. But, they didn't. They kept clawing back every time it looked like the Celtics were pulling away. So, that seems to be a team that doesn't get down on themselves.
Hopefully the Celtics really bring it on Thursday and put up a comfortable drubbing (that's not at all to suggest they didn't have effort last night, I think they did).
Tatum is like 30-40 pounds lighter than Horford. But also you're really removing him for Hauser, so you're dropping 40 pounds at C, and a bunch of length at PF.Couple things to point out here. Kornet's minutes this season are really, really loaded with minutes in blowouts late in games. Hauser and PP have a bunch too, but Kornet basically saw minutes when Al or KP sat or in blowouts.
And moving Tatum to the 5 when Horford sits doesn't make them super-small by default. Tatum is one inch (and I'm not even buying that) shorter than Horford. If you run Hauser out there for Horford, and end up with Tatum/Brown/Hauser/White/Jrue or PP, you really don't lose anything size wise and certainly not on the rebounding side seeing how good PP is at rebounding. And I think in this series, the C's are actively not crashing the offensive boards to take away Indiana's transition opportunities.
It reminds me a lot of the 2018 NBA Finals. The Cavs had a chance to win in regulation, but J.R. Smith didn't know the score and the Warriors won in overtime. My reaction at the time was that it was going to be incredibly hard for the Cavs to outplay the heavily favored Warriors four times, but nearly impossible to have to do it five out of seven.I don't know what the Indiana Pacers equivalent of SoSH would be, but if I was on there I think I'd be pretty discouraged that the Pacers coughed up a pretty good opportunity to win a game at TD Garden. "Steal" isn't quite the right verb, because they would have earned it, but the Pacers need to win one in TD Garden and they blew a really good chance to do that last night.
For the Pacers themselves, though, I'm not sure they'll be that discouraged. They proved that they can hang with Boston and deserve to be on the same floor as the Celtics. So, I don't seem them being too down on themselves. I mean, after falling down 12-0 - I sort of expected the Pacers to simply melt. But, they didn't. They kept clawing back every time it looked like the Celtics were pulling away. So, that seems to be a team that doesn't get down on themselves.
Hopefully the Celtics really bring it on Thursday and put up a comfortable drubbing (that's not at all to suggest they didn't have effort last night, I think they did).
Based on the 7 minutes of his contributions that I've actually sat through over the past several years (probably couldn't find the remote) I'd say "lack of preparation" is a subject upon which Perk is an expert.Perk today on the NBA Today: The Celtics were not prepared to play. They did no preparation in 5 days. The Pacers looked more prepared than the Celtics.
What @Deathofthebambino proposed is playing Hauser instead of Kornet. No KP means that Kornet gets bumped up but, with this match up, there's not a huge need for his Kornet's size. In regard to your last sentence, based off of MPG this entire year, the organization thinks that Hauser is a better player than Kornet.Tatum is like 30-40 pounds lighter than Horford. But also you're really removing him for Hauser, so you're dropping 40 pounds at C, and a bunch of length at PF.
Can it be done against some lineups.... sure, but I don't think it solves any of the Celtics' problems. The Celtics are the better team, they should impose on the Pacers by playing their best guys.
Yeah, this was pointed out. I'm not considering playing Tatum at the 5 instead of Horford. I'm solely talking about playing Tatum at the 5 in the non-Horford minutes.Tatum is like 30-40 pounds lighter than Horford. But also you're really removing him for Hauser, so you're dropping 40 pounds at C, and a bunch of length at PF.
Can it be done against some lineups.... sure, but I don't think it solves any of the Celtics' problems. The Celtics are the better team, they should impose on the Pacers by playing their best guys.
Perk's schtick is literally to make things up, mix in some Beaumont, Tx nonsense and yell at Stephen A. It's unbearable. When they had CP3 along with Myers in studio the other night it almost sounded coherent. Even Stephen A. toned things down a bit.Perk today on the NBA Today: The Celtics were not prepared to play. They did no preparation in 5 days. The Pacers looked more prepared than the Celtics.