Time To Panic? I Think So

[Moranis]

So to be clear the guy that scores and rebounds less puts up much better numbers?  That seems like a strange argument to make.

See, this is why people don't take you seriously, Mo.  As mentioned:

Middleton scored more points, on more shots and a higher usage.

Jrue scored nearly as many points, while leading in assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, PER, OWS, DFS, WS/48, VORP, BPM, etc.  Jrue's Net Rating was significantly better, and Jrue had a giant lead in on-off (an elite 14.0 for Jrue -- better than Giannis -- and a decent +5.4 for Middleton).

Holiday:  18.3 points on 14.2 FGA, 23.5% Usage, 50.1% FG%, 41.1% 3PT%, .570 eFG%

Middleton:  20.1 points on 15.5 FGA, 26.7% Usage, 44.3% FG%, 37.7% 3PT%, .522 eFG%

So, 1.8 extra points on 1.3 extra FGA.  That doesn't equate to better numbers.

So, I guess that leaves you with rebounding.  I will concede, the 6'7" SF Middleton slightly outrebounded the 6'3" PG Holiday by about 0.9 rebounds per game.  For whatever it's worth, though, Jrue grabs almost 50% more offensive rebounds than Middleton.

I responded directly to your statement.

The guy who puts up better numbers, plays (much) better defense and has a much bigger impact on winning isn't the better player?

Holiday is more efficient as the 3rd option than Middleton was as the 2nd option, but Middleton had better numbers.  He scored more.  He rebounded more.  Those are in fact numbers.  Middleton also generated foul shots at a higher rate and shot SIGNIFICNATLY better from the line.  Middleton turned it over at a lesser rate. 

They were relatively close as players.  You could have argued that Holiday was better without blatantly making things up.  Holiday did not have better numbers than Middleton last year. 

[Roy H.]

So to be clear the guy that scores and rebounds less puts up much better numbers?  That seems like a strange argument to make.

See, this is why people don't take you seriously, Mo.  As mentioned:

Middleton scored more points, on more shots and a higher usage.

Jrue scored nearly as many points, while leading in assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, PER, OWS, DFS, WS/48, VORP, BPM, etc.  Jrue's Net Rating was significantly better, and Jrue had a giant lead in on-off (an elite 14.0 for Jrue -- better than Giannis -- and a decent +5.4 for Middleton).

Holiday:  18.3 points on 14.2 FGA, 23.5% Usage, 50.1% FG%, 41.1% 3PT%, .570 eFG%

Middleton:  20.1 points on 15.5 FGA, 26.7% Usage, 44.3% FG%, 37.7% 3PT%, .522 eFG%

So, 1.8 extra points on 1.3 extra FGA.  That doesn't equate to better numbers.

So, I guess that leaves you with rebounding.  I will concede, the 6'7" SF Middleton slightly outrebounded the 6'3" PG Holiday by about 0.9 rebounds per game.  For whatever it's worth, though, Jrue grabs almost 50% more offensive rebounds than Middleton.

I responded directly to your statement.

The guy who puts up better numbers, plays (much) better defense and has a much bigger impact on winning isn't the better player?

Holiday is more efficient as the 3rd option than Middleton was as the 2nd option, but Middleton had better numbers.  He scored more.  He rebounded more.  Those are in fact numbers.  Middleton also generated foul shots at a higher rate and shot SIGNIFICNATLY better from the line.  Middleton turned it over at a lesser rate. 

They were relatively close as players.  You could have argued that Holiday was better without blatantly making things up.  Holiday did not have better numbers than Middleton last year.

Assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, and TS% are all numbers.  They more than offset marginal leads by Middleton in scoring (on more shots and higher usage) and rebounding (less than one RPG from the SF slot).  And that's without the metrics and advanced statistics that you're usually a fan of:  Net Rating, on-off, PER, OWS, DFS, WS/48, VORP, BPM.

[gouki88]

Boston was 1-2 with Timelord in that series and 3-1 in the games he didn't play.  He obviously wasn't at full strength, but I don't think he would have made nearly as much a difference as Middleton would have.  It was a close 7 game series after all.  Middleton was better than Rob and more important to Milwaukee's success than Rob was to Boston's.  That isn't some crazy statement and given how close the series is, it seems quite logical to assume that with both teams at full health that Milwaukee would have won the series.  The Middleton and Rob comparison is more like Brook (or Portis) vs. Jaylen i.e. really no comparison.  One teams loss is significantly greater than the others.  In a close series, that matters a lot.

I think the stats back up that we were a much better team with a healthy Timelord than we were without him.  Hobbled Timelord wasn't super impactful, just like hobbled Middleton wouldn't have been.  But full-strength Boston vs. full-strength Milwaukee?  I'm taking Boston.

I guess in fairness, we did lose an April regular season game by 6 points, in which the Bucks were at full strength and we were missing Tatum, Timelord and Horford.

Sure and Christmas without Horford, or the OT win Boston had where Giannis and Middleton were out (as was Brown).  Boston won the only game the only starter out was Brook Lopez, but it was mid-December before all the trade deadline moves by both teams. 

So in other words two relatively matched teams.  In that, I'm taking the team adding its 2nd best player vs. the one adding its 5th best player to a series that went 7 games where the 2nd best player didn't play at all and the 5th best player managed 3 of the 7.

Middleton hasn't been Milwaukee's second best player in awhile, for whatever it's worth.

he was last year.

Nope.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=holidjr01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=middlkh01&p2yrfrom=2022

Middleton scored more points, on more shots and a higher usage.

Jrue scored nearly as many points, while leading in assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, PER, OWS, DFS, WS/48, VORP, BPM, etc.  Jrue's Net Rating was significantly better, and Jrue had a giant lead in on-off (an elite 14.0 for Jrue -- better than Giannis -- and a decent +5.4 for Middleton).

Based upon your own posting history, you've got to concede this one, right?

I know the numbers, greater impact on winning and better player aren't the same thing.  I mean Curry had significantly better on/off numbers than Durant during their time together, but I don't think anyone would say Curry was better than Durant.  Heck on our team, Brown's on/off numbers aren't good at all (as we all know), but I would never suggest he isn't Boston's 2nd best player. 

Last year, Middleton was Milwaukee's 2nd best player, though I do think because of the defense and passing you could easily argue that Holiday was a more important or impactful player.  They needed Middleton's shot creation though badly in the series with Boston.  It was readily apparent that Milwaukee needed someone else that could create for himself and others, and that Holiday just wasn't good enough in that role.  Holiday is an excellent 3rd man on offense, but he isn't a 2nd man on offense type player.  If Milwaukee loses this year, it will be for that reason as well (assuming they don't have a major injury of course).  They need Middleton to get back to at least 70% of what he was pre-injury because they need that guy.  Holiday has done a bit more this year, and I do like the addition of Crowder, but Crowder is a 4th or 5th option on offense type part-time player, not a full-time 2nd or 3rd.  He can't make up the difference that not having Middleton is.  Even without Middleton at at least 70%, Milwaukee could still win the title because Giannis is just that good, but if they don't win, it will likely be for that reason.

The guy who puts up better numbers, plays (much) better defense and has a much bigger impact on winning isn't the better player?

So to be clear the guy that scores and rebounds less puts up much better numbers?  That seems like a strange argument to make.  Middleton was an all star, Holiday was not.  They both had the same amount of All NBA votes. 

Holiday as the 3rd option was more efficient shooting than Middleton as the 2nd option was, I will give you that.  Holiday as a guard had 1.4 more apg as well.  Holiday is obviously a better defender, but I'm pretty sure if you asked around, you'd find that Middleton was considered better than Holiday.  I mean ESPN's list before the year had Middleton at 19 and Holiday at 22.  Even coming off of injury this year, ESPN still had Middleton at 31, which was behind Holiday who they had at 26 for this season.  Holiday has obviously been a much better player than Middleton this year, no dispute there, but last year Middleton was the better player (and that seemed pretty clear because Holiday was awful once Middleton went down to injury in that 2nd option role).

Where was this when you were claiming Holiday was better than Brown?

[Moranis]

Boston was 1-2 with Timelord in that series and 3-1 in the games he didn't play.  He obviously wasn't at full strength, but I don't think he would have made nearly as much a difference as Middleton would have.  It was a close 7 game series after all.  Middleton was better than Rob and more important to Milwaukee's success than Rob was to Boston's.  That isn't some crazy statement and given how close the series is, it seems quite logical to assume that with both teams at full health that Milwaukee would have won the series.  The Middleton and Rob comparison is more like Brook (or Portis) vs. Jaylen i.e. really no comparison.  One teams loss is significantly greater than the others.  In a close series, that matters a lot.

I think the stats back up that we were a much better team with a healthy Timelord than we were without him.  Hobbled Timelord wasn't super impactful, just like hobbled Middleton wouldn't have been.  But full-strength Boston vs. full-strength Milwaukee?  I'm taking Boston.

I guess in fairness, we did lose an April regular season game by 6 points, in which the Bucks were at full strength and we were missing Tatum, Timelord and Horford.

Sure and Christmas without Horford, or the OT win Boston had where Giannis and Middleton were out (as was Brown).  Boston won the only game the only starter out was Brook Lopez, but it was mid-December before all the trade deadline moves by both teams. 

So in other words two relatively matched teams.  In that, I'm taking the team adding its 2nd best player vs. the one adding its 5th best player to a series that went 7 games where the 2nd best player didn't play at all and the 5th best player managed 3 of the 7.

Middleton hasn't been Milwaukee's second best player in awhile, for whatever it's worth.

he was last year.

Nope.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=holidjr01&p1yrfrom=2022&player_id2=middlkh01&p2yrfrom=2022

Middleton scored more points, on more shots and a higher usage.

Jrue scored nearly as many points, while leading in assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, FG%, 3PT%, eFG%, TS%, PER, OWS, DFS, WS/48, VORP, BPM, etc.  Jrue's Net Rating was significantly better, and Jrue had a giant lead in on-off (an elite 14.0 for Jrue -- better than Giannis -- and a decent +5.4 for Middleton).

Based upon your own posting history, you've got to concede this one, right?

I know the numbers, greater impact on winning and better player aren't the same thing.  I mean Curry had significantly better on/off numbers than Durant during their time together, but I don't think anyone would say Curry was better than Durant.  Heck on our team, Brown's on/off numbers aren't good at all (as we all know), but I would never suggest he isn't Boston's 2nd best player. 

Last year, Middleton was Milwaukee's 2nd best player, though I do think because of the defense and passing you could easily argue that Holiday was a more important or impactful player.  They needed Middleton's shot creation though badly in the series with Boston.  It was readily apparent that Milwaukee needed someone else that could create for himself and others, and that Holiday just wasn't good enough in that role.  Holiday is an excellent 3rd man on offense, but he isn't a 2nd man on offense type player.  If Milwaukee loses this year, it will be for that reason as well (assuming they don't have a major injury of course).  They need Middleton to get back to at least 70% of what he was pre-injury because they need that guy.  Holiday has done a bit more this year, and I do like the addition of Crowder, but Crowder is a 4th or 5th option on offense type part-time player, not a full-time 2nd or 3rd.  He can't make up the difference that not having Middleton is.  Even without Middleton at at least 70%, Milwaukee could still win the title because Giannis is just that good, but if they don't win, it will likely be for that reason.

The guy who puts up better numbers, plays (much) better defense and has a much bigger impact on winning isn't the better player?

So to be clear the guy that scores and rebounds less puts up much better numbers?  That seems like a strange argument to make.  Middleton was an all star, Holiday was not.  They both had the same amount of All NBA votes. 

Holiday as the 3rd option was more efficient shooting than Middleton as the 2nd option was, I will give you that.  Holiday as a guard had 1.4 more apg as well.  Holiday is obviously a better defender, but I'm pretty sure if you asked around, you'd find that Middleton was considered better than Holiday.  I mean ESPN's list before the year had Middleton at 19 and Holiday at 22.  Even coming off of injury this year, ESPN still had Middleton at 31, which was behind Holiday who they had at 26 for this season.  Holiday has obviously been a much better player than Middleton this year, no dispute there, but last year Middleton was the better player (and that seemed pretty clear because Holiday was awful once Middleton went down to injury in that 2nd option role).

Where was this when you were claiming Holiday was better than Brown?

I didn't

[tenn_smoothie]

What I am most concerned about is how our coach has added more time on to the tired bodies of both Tatum and Brown. Tatum looks burnt out.

Tatum is at 37.4 min per game. Year before, 35.9.

 Brown is at 36.2.

Brad would keep them closer to 33-35.

What is the point in  having depth if we are going to ride out 2 stars so much before the playoffs.

Tatum once again with 38 plus minutes last night.

I am officially panicking about them being overused. Didnt last years running out gas teach us anything?

I think the narrative that Tatum just plays too much and is worn out is the wrong way to look at it.

It seems like we all just aren't willing to face the reality that Tatum's basic competitive nature is more pedestrian than his other basketball skills. He's not a weak competitor, but he has shown he can't sustain a killer mentality out there all the time either. When he's feeling it, he will eat you alive. When he's having a tough time, he sometimes loses his competitive edge.

Great Point, I think you nailed it.

It's just not in Tatum, he is never going to be a player that needs to win, he just wants to win. There is a big difference.
Celts need to stop expecting him to be the leader of the team. I think he would benefit greatly if we could acquire an Alpha guy and just let Tatum be a great player. You would think Marcus Smart could be that guy, but somehow his fiery nature doesn't translate to driving this team to win. He is not demanding of his teammates.

And you can forget about our head coach demanding consistent intensity and focus from his players.
Too soft, too friendly and way in over his head.

[GetLucky]

I can't wait until people start calling Tatum "soft" for load managing.

When Brown talked about fans that boo draft picks who have never played in the NBA and tie bad games to personal character, look no further than this thread as an example.

If you have a bad game, they tie it to your personal character.

EDIT: To expand: The Celtics currently have the second best record in the NBA. They have beat the only team with a better record, the Bucks, 2 out of 3 times, and the one loss was in OT with none of our starters. We have beaten the team with the next best record, the 76ers, three times this season. This is the highest variance, lowest separation year in NBA history. All of the top contenders have lost to most of the teams the Celtics have.

Yes, the Bucks have lost to the Hawks (2x), Spurs, Bulls, Wizards, Heat (2x), Hornets, Rockets, and Pacers.

The 76ers have lost to the Spurs, Wizards, Rockets, Bulls (2x), and Thunder.

It happens, we root for one of the 3 best teams in the NBA. I still think the Celtics have as good a shot as any to win a ring this year. Could they also be a second round exit? Yes.

[Roy H.]

I can't wait until people start calling Tatum "soft" for load managing.

When Brown talked about fans that boo draft picks who have never played in the NBA and tie bad games to personal character, look no further than this thread as an example.

If you have a bad game, they tie it to your personal character.

EDIT: To expand: The Celtics currently have the second best record in the NBA. They have beat the only team with a better record, the Bucks, 2 out of 3 times, and the one loss was in OT with none of our starters. We have beaten the team with the next best record, the 76ers, three times this season. This is the highest variance, lowest separation year in NBA history. All of the top contenders have lost to most of the teams the Celtics have.

Yes, the Bucks have lost to the Hawks (2x), Spurs, Bulls, Wizards, Heat (2x), Hornets, Rockets, and Pacers.

The 76ers have lost to the Spurs, Wizards, Rockets, Bulls (2x), and Thunder.

It happens, we root for one of the 3 best teams in the NBA. I still think the Celtics have as good a shot as any to win a ring this year. Could they also be a second round exit? Yes.

It’s not about record, or standings.  It’s about level of play.

The Celtics haven’t been playing like a contender for a couple of months.  The offense in particular has been pretty mediocre.

As for why Tatum is playing poorly, I don’t know.  But, his shooting numbers have been pretty poor since the ASB.

[Moranis]

By net rating the Celtics have the 4th best offense and the 4th best defense in the league with the overall 2nd best net rating (also the 2nd best SRS).  They have the 2nd best record in basketball.  They are 3-2 on the current road trip and one of the losses was the 2nd night of a back to back.  Obviously, the offense has come down from the greatest offense ever pace they were on the first 25 games, but this notion that the sky is falling just isn't borne out in reality. 

[Roy H.]

By net rating the Celtics have the 4th best offense and the 4th best defense in the league with the overall 2nd best net rating (also the 2nd best SRS).  They have the 2nd best record in basketball.  They are 3-2 on the current road trip and one of the losses was the 2nd night of a back to back.  Obviously, the offense has come down from the greatest offense ever pace they were on the first 25 games, but this notion that the sky is falling just isn't borne out in reality.

The numbers are above.  There's a pretty wide disparity between "greatest offense ever" to "16th best offense for three and a half months".

Edit:  Sorry, the numbers were in a different thread:

Yeah, on December 8 were we 21-5, with an ORtg of 121.4, a bonkers number.  The next closest team was Phoenix, at 118.3.  The league average was 113.4.

Since December 9, we are 28-18, with an ORtg of 116.7.  That ranks 16th in the NBA.  The league average since that time is 116.5.  So, our offense has been the tiniest speck above average since the 21-5 start.

People often point to our defense being the weak link on this team, but it's the offense.  Our stars are simply not shooting the ball well.

[angryguy77]

By net rating the Celtics have the 4th best offense and the 4th best defense in the league with the overall 2nd best net rating (also the 2nd best SRS).  They have the 2nd best record in basketball.  They are 3-2 on the current road trip and one of the losses was the 2nd night of a back to back.  Obviously, the offense has come down from the greatest offense ever pace they were on the first 25 games, but this notion that the sky is falling just isn't borne out in reality.

The stats are lipstick on a pig at this point. You see how Milwaukee is playing? That's what a true contender looks like. They need to do more of that.

[Moranis]

By net rating the Celtics have the 4th best offense and the 4th best defense in the league with the overall 2nd best net rating (also the 2nd best SRS).  They have the 2nd best record in basketball.  They are 3-2 on the current road trip and one of the losses was the 2nd night of a back to back.  Obviously, the offense has come down from the greatest offense ever pace they were on the first 25 games, but this notion that the sky is falling just isn't borne out in reality.

The numbers are above.  There's a pretty wide disparity between "greatest offense ever" to "16th best offense for three and a half months".

Edit:  Sorry, the numbers were in a different thread:

Yeah, on December 8 were we 21-5, with an ORtg of 121.4, a bonkers number.  The next closest team was Phoenix, at 118.3.  The league average was 113.4.

Since December 9, we are 28-18, with an ORtg of 116.7.  That ranks 16th in the NBA.  The league average since that time is 116.5.  So, our offense has been the tiniest speck above average since the 21-5 start.

People often point to our defense being the weak link on this team, but it's the offense.  Our stars are simply not shooting the ball well.

Sure, but while the offense was so good, the defense was not.  There is a trade off.  Last year Boston had the 7th best offense and 2nd best defense (and was 2nd in net rating).  This year the defense improved significantly when Rob came back, but Rob coming back was always going to hurt the offense because he is a bad offensive player.  If you play Rob, defense is better, but offense is worse.  That is the sort of trade off the team has had to look at.  But overall, Boston by basically every metric is the 2nd best team in the sport and no worse than the 3rd best team (with Milwaukee and Denver). 

Boston is performing like everyone should have expected them to i.e. a top 2 or 3 team in basketball over the course of the regular season.  A team that could beat everyone in the playoffs and win the championship.  That is what Boston has played like on the whole.  A bad loss here or there, doesn't change any of that.  I do think Milwaukee is the best team and would favor them over Boston, but Boston winning wouldn't be some big surprise or upset either.

[Roy H.]

By net rating the Celtics have the 4th best offense and the 4th best defense in the league with the overall 2nd best net rating (also the 2nd best SRS).  They have the 2nd best record in basketball.  They are 3-2 on the current road trip and one of the losses was the 2nd night of a back to back.  Obviously, the offense has come down from the greatest offense ever pace they were on the first 25 games, but this notion that the sky is falling just isn't borne out in reality.

The numbers are above.  There's a pretty wide disparity between "greatest offense ever" to "16th best offense for three and a half months".

Edit:  Sorry, the numbers were in a different thread:

Yeah, on December 8 were we 21-5, with an ORtg of 121.4, a bonkers number.  The next closest team was Phoenix, at 118.3.  The league average was 113.4.

Since December 9, we are 28-18, with an ORtg of 116.7.  That ranks 16th in the NBA.  The league average since that time is 116.5.  So, our offense has been the tiniest speck above average since the 21-5 start.

People often point to our defense being the weak link on this team, but it's the offense.  Our stars are simply not shooting the ball well.

Sure, but while the offense was so good, the defense was not.  There is a trade off.  Last year Boston had the 7th best offense and 2nd best defense (and was 2nd in net rating).  This year the defense improved significantly when Rob came back, but Rob coming back was always going to hurt the offense because he is a bad offensive player.  If you play Rob, defense is better, but offense is worse.  That is the sort of trade off the team has had to look at.  But overall, Boston by basically every metric is the 2nd best team in the sport and no worse than the 3rd best team (with Milwaukee and Denver). 

Boston is performing like everyone should have expected them to i.e. a top 2 or 3 team in basketball over the course of the regular season.  A team that could beat everyone in the playoffs and win the championship.  That is what Boston has played like on the whole.  A bad loss here or there, doesn't change any of that.  I do think Milwaukee is the best team and would favor them over Boston, but Boston winning wouldn't be some big surprise or upset either.

That's kind of a false narrative, though.  Last season, from January 10 until the end of the year, we had the best offense in the NBA, at 120.0.  That's an elite number, sustained for over three months.

We also had the best DRtg during that time period, at 106.7. 

The Net Rtg, then, was +13.3, a staggering number.

Your take seems to be that a very strong start followed by a mediocre finish is the same as a slow start followed by an elite finish to the season.  You seem to be arguing that it all evens out. 

I disagree.  I think that the sustained level of play a team has been showing leading into the playoffs is correlated with the level of play a team will show in the playoffs.  In other words, two months of poor play followed by three months of elite play is a stronger indicator of playoff success than two months of elite play followed by three months of mediocre play.   

[Roy H.]

I guess another way of looking at it, via poor analogy:

Overall, an invest returns a 20% ROI over the course of a year.  That, on its own, sounds great.

But, looking more closely, the investment had a 40% ROI through July 1, and since then has had a -20% ROI (please pretend the math works.  I know it doesn't).  It's missed earning calls, and the company seems rudderless.  It's dropped value six months in a row.

Should an investor be optimistic about this stock in the short term, or not?

[slamtheking]

I think that the sustained level of play a team has been showing leading into the playoffs is correlated with the level of play a team will show in the playoffs.  In other words, two months of poor play followed by three months of elite play is a stronger indicator of playoff success than two months of elite play followed by three months of mediocre play.   

This.

looking at a whole season to see how the team did is ignoring recent performance which is a much better indicator of how a team will do in the playoffs.  They'll end up with a top 4 record in the league but with the way they've been playing, does anyone really have a lot of confidence they'll be one of the last 4 teams standing in the playoffs?  Yes, I realize that 3 of those top teams are in the East so one of those top 4 will be out but would anyone right now say the C's are a lock to be in the ECF? -- I don't think so.

[Moranis]

I think being hot is generally better when you enter the playoffs, but I'm not sure historically that matters.  Last year the final 4 teams over their last 20 games were a mixed bag.  The Heat were 12-8 which is worse than the overall season. The C's were 15-5 or better.  Out west the Warriors were 10-10 (and going back further were 12-15 in their last 27) while the Mavs were 15-5 (better).  So 2 of the final 4 teams entered the playoffs performing worse than their overall season for over a month, including the eventual champion.