6 Reasons the Celtics Will Be on Vacation in June

[ACF]

Yeah, sure, totally overlook the last 7 games where a lot of positive things occurred and where we limited our usual areas of struggles (rebounding, turnovers, lack of energy)  and just focus on all the bad parts from our latest loss, a really bad loss where nothing went our way all night long, and make a statement about our ride in the playoffs. Totally makes sense.

And as for the "Our shooters go cold" argument, guess what?  This is typical in the NBA and it happens to every team on a quite regular basis during the season.

TP, D.

[GreenFaith1819]

Yeah, sure, totally overlook the last 7 games where a lot of positive things occurred and where we limited our usual areas of struggles (rebounding, turnovers, lack of energy)  and just focus on all the bad parts from our latest loss, a really bad loss where nothing went our way all night long, and make a statement about our ride in the playoffs. Totally makes sense.

And as for the "Our shooters go cold" argument, guess what?  This is typical in the NBA and it happens to every team on a quite regular basis during the season.

TP, D.

And 2.

[GreenFaith1819]

LOL Celtics blog is funny sometimes, after losses everyone overreacts and is quick to nitpick flaws. And vice versa the opposite say we beat Cleveland next week, there will be a influx of "...I beleive Banner #18 threads"

Good Point..no lukewarm here, my friend.

And I'm the Resident Kool-Aid Drinker .

"Ohhh YEAHHH!!!!!"

[nickagneta]

While I want to be and like being as positive as the next guy, I seriously don't think PosImpos' evaluation of this team was all that negative or, in fact, all that far from reality. I think it was a fairly objective look at what ails this team and the shortcomings they will need to overcome.

And, honestly, I love this team, but I find it difficult seeing them playing in the Eastern Conference or NBA Finals for a lot of the reasons that PosImpos pointed out. I'm still going to cheer and hope but his points are spot on.

Has the team been playing better as of late? Sure. Has March been a good month for them? Sure. But they still got blown out twice at home to Memphis and San Antonio. folded in the second half in Utah, let a horrible Sacramento team back in the game with a lackadaisical second half, and had to come back from way back late to beat another horrible team when Washington played here.

Their inconsistencies are still rather evident and inconsistencies and the points PosImpos brought up spell a reality that isn't bright, shiny or rosy. Have faith? Sure. But not every thread or post that doesn't paint the absolute brightest picture for a championship outcome is overly negative or over reactive. Sometimes, they can based squarely in reality.

[Who]

#1 -- the lack of quickness and mobility from the big men collectively which has decreased the Celtics ability to play high end pick and roll defense, transition defense and to make multiple defensive rotations on the same possession.

#2 -- the below average rebounding which is largely due to the very poor rebounding Boston is getting from Rasheed Wallace and the wing players (Pierce/Ray/Marquis).

#3 -- the decline offensively from Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett ... KG's problems appear to be more mental than physical. Not enough confidence in his body's health. Not enough urgency to take over. Paul Pierce's problems are more worrying, he just doesn't look consistently capable of being a dominant scorer anymore. A very good one, yes, but not a dominant one. Not the type of guy who could take over a game whenever his team needs him to.

[vinnie]

LOL Celtics blog is funny sometimes, after losses everyone overreacts and is quick to nitpick flaws. And vice versa the opposite say we beat Cleveland next week, there will be a influx of "...I beleive Banner #18 threads"

In my case, I have been consistent since early January that this team does not have the horses to win the title. Still love them and will still go to most homes games and watch every other home and away game. You can still be a fan of a team and take a step back and say, "I just don't think they are good enough."

[mobilija]

All quality observations, but I don't think they all totally hold water.

I agree that the team rebounds poorly (due to both the reasons the OP and Who pointed out, as well as their Offensive Rebounding philosophy). We do lack a defined inside post game (though this is sometimes manufactured by a variety of players, i.e. KG, Pierce, Rasheed, Quis, and Perk), however these plays aren't run consistently. And yeah, the team lacks some athleticism and energy, I think caused by age and mostly injury.

However, I disagree that they are inconsistent slashers and inconsistent jumpshooters. Heck they are consistent enough to be one of the top teams (they do have a very good record, and are arguablly the 10th to 5th best team in the league). You can't be winninng team if the two ways you score slash or jumpshoot are inconsistent. How do you assume they score?

And we have three Superstars, not at the Wade,Kobe, Lebron level due to age, but I think collectively anyone of them can easily have it going on any given nite.

The odds are stacked against this team, but not heavily. If we get a few breaks and everyone is healthy for the playoffs, there is a valid chance that this team brings home 18. This is a veteran/prideful team and they will not just roll over. Anything can happen in a 7 game series, this team can grind it out and impose their will if need be.

Can't wait to see what happens....

[nickagneta]

All quality observations, but I don't think they all totally hold water.

However, I disagree that they are inconsistent slashers and inconsistent jumpshooters. Heck they are consistent enough to be one of the top teams (they do have a very good record, and are arguablly the 10th to 5th best team in the league). You can't be winninng team if the two ways you score slash or jumpshoot are inconsistent. How do you assume they score?

For a team who's FG% is 4th in the league, the fact that they have a 3PT FG% that has been consistently in the middle of the pack all year shows me that their long distance shooters haven't been consistent. Also, the C's are 19th in the league in PPG so I think bringing up their record as proof of their consistency in offense is a false indicator of disproving PosImpos' point. This team wins with consistent defense not consistent or even efficient offense(currently the C's are 16th in offensive efficiency).

All quality observations, but I don't think they all totally hold water.

And we have three Superstars, not at the Wade,Kobe, Lebron level due to age, but I think collectively anyone of them can easily have it going on any given nite.

KG, Paul and Ray are no longer superstars in the NBA in any sense of the word, anymore, in my opinion. Superstars can carry a team, any team. Put any one of the Big Three on a bad team right now and I don't see them being able to carry that team by themselves.

Together they are a superstar triumvirate. But as individuals, they aren't superstars any more. You said it yourself, "anyone of them can easily have it going on any given nite" but they don't have it going nearly every night. And that to me defines "superstar".

[Who]

Side Note: I was curious one day, awhile back, to see how badly Wallace was dragging the team's three point field goal percentage down.

About a month ago, I think the Celtics would have been 5th/6th in three point accuracy without Wallace ... but some teams have heated up since then ... through to today, the Celtics would have a 3FG% of 36.25% not including Rasheed Wallace. So they would be somewhere between 7th-10th best in the league if not for Wallace.

Just a side note for anyone else wondering the same thing.

[CoachBo]

It's been the same story all season:

1) Poor rebounding - in part because our bigs don't block out and in part because our team has a general lack of athleticism.

2) Lack of interior scoring.  Our most reliable scorer within 5 feet is Perk, and he can't succeed on offense unless everybody else is hitting shots so he is left open.  He can't score 1 on 1.  KG is now primarily a mid-range jumpshooter and Rasheed...well, Rasheed is different things on different nights but in general he's not reliable from anywhere.  Davis is too stumpy to finish around the rim in traffic consistently, especially when the defense pays attention to him.  Shelden Williams is just not a good offensive player.

3) Inconsistent outside shooters.  There are games (like the latest game against the Spurs) when all of our shooters go cold and we can't hit anything from beyond the arc.  The C's almost always lose those games, especially against decent teams. Unlike Orlando, the Celtics don't have the best rebounder and put-back-er in the league to help them out when the outside shots aren't falling.

4) Lack of bench offense - nobody on the bench can create their own shot.  Thought Nate would be an improvement but he hasn't been.

5) Inconsistent slashers.  At times, Rondo takes over games with his ability to drive to the hoop.  Occasionally, Paul Pierce does the same.  Indeed, even Ray Allen gets in on that action sometimes.  We've seen Marquis Daniels have some good games cutting to the rack, as well as TA.  But we've also seen far too many games - important games against good opponents - where most or all of those players disappear in that regard.  I don't think I've seen a game yet where Rondo is able to drive the lane for the whole game even when the opposing defense starts trying to clamp down; in fact, as soon as the defense game-plans for Rondo, he seems to stop scoring.  Paul Pierce used to be our main option for driving the lane, and he could do it very well, but this year with the decline in his speed, athleticism, and overall game he's become more and more an outside player and those cuts to the rack have become rarer.

6) No superstar.  When things get tough, when the opposing defense really clamps down, when the offensive sets aren't working, the Celtics really need somebody who can just step up and take over the game - somebody who can will the team to victory.  The Miami Heat are not a very good team but they're still managing 40 wins and are heating up late in the season because they have a player who wins them games on his own.  The Lakers have won quite a few close games this season because Kobe takes over late in the fourth when the rest of the team fades.  LeBron is a one man team.  When everything goes right, it is possible for a team of great players without a superstar to play very good team basketball and win when it matters.  It happened for Detroit in '04, and we saw it happen for us in Boston in '08.  I just don't believe the '10 Celtics are that kind of team.  Indeed, there really isn't a team in the league like that this year, in my opinion.  In June, a superstar will hoist the trophy.

The bottom line is when the outside shots don't fall, this team has a really hard time scoring in the paint; it's that inability to score inside or make up for the low fg% with aggressive rebounding that will ultimately spell their defeat in the playoffs.  Right now the Celtics are a better, more experienced version of teams like Portland, Chicago, OKC, Charlotte etc who all play very well for stretches but fail to play great consistently because of their lack of an inside presence.  There's a reason LA, Cleveland, and Orlando are the 3 best teams in the league - they have superstars, and they have great interior guys.



Note:

I posted this in response to the "C's flaws aren't going to just disappear thread," but I decided to make a post of it since I spent a while writing it and didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle of things. 

I'm not happy to say any of this, but I think this is a complete assessment of the Celtic's issues this year, and I don't see how any of these issues are going to magically go away next month.  Even during this latest stretch, we've seen some good things but not enough, and not against the harder opponents.  Nothing we've seen recently or at the start of this year changes any of the 6 problems I've outlined.

Absolutely nothing here I can disagree with. Excellent post, TP for you.

[nickagneta]

Side Note: I was curious one day, awhile back, to see how badly Wallace was dragging the team's three point field goal percentage down.

About a month ago, I think the Celtics would have been 5th/6th in three point accuracy without Wallace ... but some teams have heated up since then ... through to today, the Celtics would have a 3FG% of 36.25% not including Rasheed Wallace. So they would be somewhere between 7th-10th best in the league if not for Wallace.

Just a side note for anyone else wondering the same thing.

I see what you are saying, Who, but at the same time it's like saying if you discount Ray's three point shooting in Dec, Jan and Feb, he would be having a typical Ray Allen three point shooting year. Rasheed Wallace is one of the reasons for the C's inconsistent long distance shooting so it's kind of hard to discount him.

One of my main pet peeves with Doc this year is his continuing to be unable to rein in Wallace from shooting three's. I love KG's outside shooting that spreads the floor but his outside shooting has always been good to great. Rasheed's three point shooting has been bad from the outset this year and he should have forced him to stop and concentrate his efforts elsewhere.

[mobilija]

All quality observations, but I don't think they all totally hold water.

However, I disagree that they are inconsistent slashers and inconsistent jumpshooters. Heck they are consistent enough to be one of the top teams (they do have a very good record, and are arguablly the 10th to 5th best team in the league). You can't be winninng team if the two ways you score slash or jumpshoot are inconsistent. How do you assume they score?

For a team who's FG% is 4th in the league, the fact that they have a 3PT FG% that has been consistently in the middle of the pack all year shows me that their long distance shooters haven't been consistent. Also, the C's are 19th in the league in PPG so I think bringing up their record as proof of their consistency in offense is a false indicator of disproving PosImpos' point. This team wins with consistent defense not consistent or even efficient offense(currently the C's are 16th in offensive efficiency).

All quality observations, but I don't think they all totally hold water.

And we have three Superstars, not at the Wade,Kobe, Lebron level due to age, but I think collectively anyone of them can easily have it going on any given nite.

KG, Paul and Ray are no longer superstars in the NBA in any sense of the word, anymore, in my opinion. Superstars can carry a team, any team. Put any one of the Big Three on a bad team right now and I don't see them being able to carry that team by themselves.

Together they are a superstar triumvirate. But as individuals, they aren't superstars any more. You said it yourself, "anyone of them can easily have it going on any given nite" but they don't have it going nearly every night. And that to me defines "superstar".

Ok, I'm not a stats guy, but my point is, How can you be both inconsistent at slashing and jumpshooting and still score enough to win? I agreed that we don't have much of a post game, so that would indicate that we score by jump shooting or slashing. I guess inconsistent seems like vague labeling at best, since we have to score somehow and as our record indicates we score more than our opposition.

Yes, not one singular shining star, but I don't think that is a requirement for winning. We have three past their prime superstars and even the OP points out that teams have won the championship with a host of less than superstar players.


Like I said, pretty valid observations this team, but not  in my opinion defacto championship killer facts.

BTW sorry i messed up the quote thing... OK Cut and Paste all better now

[Who]

Also, the Celtics would move up from fifth to tied third in true shooting percentage if you removing Rasheed Wallace from the equation.

Replace Rasheed with an efficient scorer like Leon Powe using the same number of possessions and the team's true shooting percentage would increase even further. Not enough to catch Cleveland or Phoenix but ahead of Orlando in third place.

[Who]

Side Note: I was curious one day, awhile back, to see how badly Wallace was dragging the team's three point field goal percentage down.

About a month ago, I think the Celtics would have been 5th/6th in three point accuracy without Wallace ... but some teams have heated up since then ... through to today, the Celtics would have a 3FG% of 36.25% not including Rasheed Wallace. So they would be somewhere between 7th-10th best in the league if not for Wallace.

Just a side note for anyone else wondering the same thing.

I see what you are saying, Who, but at the same time it's like saying if you discount Ray's three point shooting in Dec, Jan and Feb, he would be having a typical Ray Allen three point shooting year. Rasheed Wallace is one of the reasons for the C's inconsistent long distance shooting so it's kind of hard to discount him.

One of my main pet peeves with Doc this year is his continuing to be unable to rein in Wallace from shooting three's. I love KG's outside shooting that spreads the floor but his outside shooting has always been good to great. Rasheed's three point shooting has been bad from the outset this year and he should have forced him to stop and concentrate his efforts elsewhere.

Agreed -- absolutely agree -- I was talking more about Rasheed's effect on the team's offense. That despite his amazing offensive skill-set for a backup PF/C ... Sheed's trigger happy inefficient scoring has been having some negative effects.

Also, that if you remove Sheed from the equation (say if he was dumped this summer), then, the situation would get better for the Celtics. That they still have several good shooters on the roster, and if they added a backup wing who could shoot, they could regain their spot as one of the league's top perimeter shooting teams.

[nickagneta]

Side Note: I was curious one day, awhile back, to see how badly Wallace was dragging the team's three point field goal percentage down.

About a month ago, I think the Celtics would have been 5th/6th in three point accuracy without Wallace ... but some teams have heated up since then ... through to today, the Celtics would have a 3FG% of 36.25% not including Rasheed Wallace. So they would be somewhere between 7th-10th best in the league if not for Wallace.

Just a side note for anyone else wondering the same thing.

I see what you are saying, Who, but at the same time it's like saying if you discount Ray's three point shooting in Dec, Jan and Feb, he would be having a typical Ray Allen three point shooting year. Rasheed Wallace is one of the reasons for the C's inconsistent long distance shooting so it's kind of hard to discount him.

One of my main pet peeves with Doc this year is his continuing to be unable to rein in Wallace from shooting three's. I love KG's outside shooting that spreads the floor but his outside shooting has always been good to great. Rasheed's three point shooting has been bad from the outset this year and he should have forced him to stop and concentrate his efforts elsewhere.

Agreed -- absolutely agree -- I was talking more about Rasheed's effect on the team's offense. That despite his amazing offensive skill-set for a backup PF/C ... Sheed's trigger happy inefficient scoring has been having some negative effects.

Also, that if you remove Sheed from the equation (say if he was dumped this summer), then, the situation would get better for the Celtics. That they still have several good shooters on the roster, and if they added a backup wing who could shoot, they could regain their spot as one of the league's top perimeter shooting teams.

I would love to dump Sheed in Charlotte straight up for Nazr Mohammed. Then watch what happens to the team's FG and 3 PT FG percentages.