Author Topic: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?  (Read 2541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2022, 08:38:28 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35025
  • Tommy Points: 2486
Fingers crossed that on Friday we will have the top 8-9 players available all on the same night for the first time in what has to be months.  I was curious as to how often the Celtics had their most commonly used lineup available, so I went to the lineup stats on NBA.com.  What I found is that our starting unit has played the 34th most minutes together of any 5-man combination, although it has only been available for 12 games (out of 46), which puts it outside the top 100 for games played by a 5-man lineup.  What I also found is that it performs really well together.  It's net rating is 17.5.  Of the 34 lineups with at least that many minutes together, only two have performed better.  In other words, Ime's preferred starting lineup works, and is one of the better lineups in the NBA.

Obviously there are some problems with the overall construction of the team, but the starting lineup has been remarkably successful, and hopefully we get to see it nightly for the next few weeks.  (My preferred closing lineups, with Richardson or Grant replacing Horford, also work, with a combined net rating of about 28 in 50 minutes combined).  The starters with Schroeder instead of Smart have also proven very effective in 5 games, 46 minutes of action (27.8 net rating).  Somewhere buried in this mess is a quality team.  Hopefully we can get a run of everyone being available for several games in a row to see it.

The talent is there it just needs to be managed.
The talent is there for what; 8th place?
I think on paper we have as much talent as any Eastern team outside the top 5

Lineups composed of only our top 8 have a net rating of 3.8. It probably could be better than that with a different coach, but yeah, it's not a bad front part of the roster.  The problem is those 8 are rarely (if ever) all available, and dipping lower than that into the rotation, even when paired with the top guys, tends to drag down performance considerably.  More than half of the minutes played this season (55%) include someone from outside that core 8.  I just want to see that group get a few weeks together.  If I had time I'd see how Pritchard does when included with the other top 8.  My guess is he doesn't have too many minutes by himself with that group tho, as opposed to also playing with Langford, Nesmith, Freedom, etc.

It's a long season. You are going to need more than 8 players during the year.

I mean, thatís obvious.  And thatís the point, really. There are all these threads/comments about the two big lineup being the problem, but it isnít.  Or SchrŲder or Smart, but they arenít really.  Sometimes other players get criticized too, but of the top 8, when itís just them, weíre a good team.  Maybe not championship quality, but significantly better than .500.  A team that can maybe even win a series or two in the postseason.  The problem is we need more than 8 guys, and at least one of our 9-15 have been on the floor for the majority of minutes this year, and when they have been, things generally go south.  But if the top of the rotation can be available every night for a few weeks, or in the postseason, itís a very different team.

There's foul trouble there are injuries... Someone else is going to have to be playable. I thought Romeo was playing really well yesterday and should've gone a lot longer in the 4th.

Iím with you on Romeo.  I want him to be the 9th man, but itís a lot more up and down when he comes in with the top 8.  But as to injuries, the whole point is what this team is when itís healthy.  Thatís literally the thread title.

There is still foul trouble, Tatum last night, and back to backs. You may be able to get away with 8 during the playoffs but during the season you need at least 10.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2022, 08:50:46 PM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3527
  • Tommy Points: 323
Fingers crossed that on Friday we will have the top 8-9 players available all on the same night for the first time in what has to be months.  I was curious as to how often the Celtics had their most commonly used lineup available, so I went to the lineup stats on NBA.com.  What I found is that our starting unit has played the 34th most minutes together of any 5-man combination, although it has only been available for 12 games (out of 46), which puts it outside the top 100 for games played by a 5-man lineup.  What I also found is that it performs really well together.  It's net rating is 17.5.  Of the 34 lineups with at least that many minutes together, only two have performed better.  In other words, Ime's preferred starting lineup works, and is one of the better lineups in the NBA.

Obviously there are some problems with the overall construction of the team, but the starting lineup has been remarkably successful, and hopefully we get to see it nightly for the next few weeks.  (My preferred closing lineups, with Richardson or Grant replacing Horford, also work, with a combined net rating of about 28 in 50 minutes combined).  The starters with Schroeder instead of Smart have also proven very effective in 5 games, 46 minutes of action (27.8 net rating).  Somewhere buried in this mess is a quality team.  Hopefully we can get a run of everyone being available for several games in a row to see it.

The talent is there it just needs to be managed.
The talent is there for what; 8th place?
I think on paper we have as much talent as any Eastern team outside the top 5

Lineups composed of only our top 8 have a net rating of 3.8. It probably could be better than that with a different coach, but yeah, it's not a bad front part of the roster.  The problem is those 8 are rarely (if ever) all available, and dipping lower than that into the rotation, even when paired with the top guys, tends to drag down performance considerably.  More than half of the minutes played this season (55%) include someone from outside that core 8.  I just want to see that group get a few weeks together.  If I had time I'd see how Pritchard does when included with the other top 8.  My guess is he doesn't have too many minutes by himself with that group tho, as opposed to also playing with Langford, Nesmith, Freedom, etc.

It's a long season. You are going to need more than 8 players during the year.

I mean, thatís obvious.  And thatís the point, really. There are all these threads/comments about the two big lineup being the problem, but it isnít.  Or SchrŲder or Smart, but they arenít really.  Sometimes other players get criticized too, but of the top 8, when itís just them, weíre a good team.  Maybe not championship quality, but significantly better than .500.  A team that can maybe even win a series or two in the postseason.  The problem is we need more than 8 guys, and at least one of our 9-15 have been on the floor for the majority of minutes this year, and when they have been, things generally go south.  But if the top of the rotation can be available every night for a few weeks, or in the postseason, itís a very different team.

There's foul trouble there are injuries... Someone else is going to have to be playable. I thought Romeo was playing really well yesterday and should've gone a lot longer in the 4th.

Iím with you on Romeo.  I want him to be the 9th man, but itís a lot more up and down when he comes in with the top 8.  But as to injuries, the whole point is what this team is when itís healthy.  Thatís literally the thread title.

There is still foul trouble, Tatum last night, and back to backs. You may be able to get away with 8 during the playoffs but during the season you need at least 10.

You donít really need to that often on a given night.  Tatum had foul trouble and still got his usual 35 minutes.  8 man rotations are not unheard of in the playoffs.  In the regular season we probably arenít going to be killed by 12-15 minutes a night from the 9th man, but youíre hung up on the wrong point.  The point is that the top 8 guys form a good rotation, even with the coaching. They arenít what needs to be fixed.  Itís the cliff we drop off when anyone else comes in.  We can get a different rotation next year, but if weíre still relying on a similarly bad 9-15 next year it wonít matter.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2022, 09:00:03 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4865
  • Tommy Points: 481
If the Cs shot the 3 point shot as well as they did last year, they would have the 4th best point differential in the NBA. A change in personnel (Fournier and Kemba most notably) hurt them in that regard, but other players have fallen off considerably. Most notably, JT is shooting 33.7% vs. 37.3% from beyond the arc, which alone translates into 1.6 ppg. He alone would move the Cs net scoring margin into the 7th best in the NBA regardless of the loss of good shooters if he were shooting 3s as well as last year (and JT's always been a good shooter beyond the arc). His consistency has been way off, too, and he was listed recently as one of the ten least consistent players by ESPN stats guru Kevin Pelton. Of NBA stars, only he and Steph Curry were in that category.

The other obvious factor is how badly the Cs have played in close games. The Cs are tied for 16th in W/L% vs. their net margin being 12th. Usually an indicator of winning close games. Last I knew, the Cs were 2nd worst in games decided by 5 points, and according to the expanded standings at ESPN, they're tied for 25th in W/L% in 3 point games and have the 2nd most losses (6) to Indy's 10. To me, that's maturity, leadership, and coaching, none of which are strong points currently.

IOW, I don't think health alone would transform us into contender status though we definitely would be better.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2022, 09:01:42 PM »

Offline liam

  • NCE
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35025
  • Tommy Points: 2486
Fingers crossed that on Friday we will have the top 8-9 players available all on the same night for the first time in what has to be months.  I was curious as to how often the Celtics had their most commonly used lineup available, so I went to the lineup stats on NBA.com.  What I found is that our starting unit has played the 34th most minutes together of any 5-man combination, although it has only been available for 12 games (out of 46), which puts it outside the top 100 for games played by a 5-man lineup.  What I also found is that it performs really well together.  It's net rating is 17.5.  Of the 34 lineups with at least that many minutes together, only two have performed better.  In other words, Ime's preferred starting lineup works, and is one of the better lineups in the NBA.

Obviously there are some problems with the overall construction of the team, but the starting lineup has been remarkably successful, and hopefully we get to see it nightly for the next few weeks.  (My preferred closing lineups, with Richardson or Grant replacing Horford, also work, with a combined net rating of about 28 in 50 minutes combined).  The starters with Schroeder instead of Smart have also proven very effective in 5 games, 46 minutes of action (27.8 net rating).  Somewhere buried in this mess is a quality team.  Hopefully we can get a run of everyone being available for several games in a row to see it.

The talent is there it just needs to be managed.
The talent is there for what; 8th place?
I think on paper we have as much talent as any Eastern team outside the top 5

Lineups composed of only our top 8 have a net rating of 3.8. It probably could be better than that with a different coach, but yeah, it's not a bad front part of the roster.  The problem is those 8 are rarely (if ever) all available, and dipping lower than that into the rotation, even when paired with the top guys, tends to drag down performance considerably.  More than half of the minutes played this season (55%) include someone from outside that core 8.  I just want to see that group get a few weeks together.  If I had time I'd see how Pritchard does when included with the other top 8.  My guess is he doesn't have too many minutes by himself with that group tho, as opposed to also playing with Langford, Nesmith, Freedom, etc.

It's a long season. You are going to need more than 8 players during the year.

I mean, thatís obvious.  And thatís the point, really. There are all these threads/comments about the two big lineup being the problem, but it isnít.  Or SchrŲder or Smart, but they arenít really.  Sometimes other players get criticized too, but of the top 8, when itís just them, weíre a good team.  Maybe not championship quality, but significantly better than .500.  A team that can maybe even win a series or two in the postseason.  The problem is we need more than 8 guys, and at least one of our 9-15 have been on the floor for the majority of minutes this year, and when they have been, things generally go south.  But if the top of the rotation can be available every night for a few weeks, or in the postseason, itís a very different team.

There's foul trouble there are injuries... Someone else is going to have to be playable. I thought Romeo was playing really well yesterday and should've gone a lot longer in the 4th.

Iím with you on Romeo.  I want him to be the 9th man, but itís a lot more up and down when he comes in with the top 8.  But as to injuries, the whole point is what this team is when itís healthy.  Thatís literally the thread title.

There is still foul trouble, Tatum last night, and back to backs. You may be able to get away with 8 during the playoffs but during the season you need at least 10.

You donít really need to that often on a given night.  Tatum had foul trouble and still got his usual 35 minutes.  8 man rotations are not unheard of in the playoffs.  In the regular season we probably arenít going to be killed by 12-15 minutes a night from the 9th man, but youíre hung up on the wrong point.  The point is that the top 8 guys form a good rotation, even with the coaching. They arenít what needs to be fixed.  Itís the cliff we drop off when anyone else comes in.  We can get a different rotation next year, but if weíre still relying on a similarly bad 9-15 next year it wonít matter.

Yeah, I fine with a tighter rotation if we make the playoffs. I understand you either need new guys or develop some that you already have. It's been like this for 8 years or so. Romeo last night was a good example of a time to let a guy run on a good night.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2022, 09:22:28 PM »

Offline pokeKingCurtis

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
  • Tommy Points: 272
Fingers crossed that on Friday we will have the top 8-9 players available all on the same night for the first time in what has to be months.  I was curious as to how often the Celtics had their most commonly used lineup available, so I went to the lineup stats on NBA.com.  What I found is that our starting unit has played the 34th most minutes together of any 5-man combination, although it has only been available for 12 games (out of 46), which puts it outside the top 100 for games played by a 5-man lineup.  What I also found is that it performs really well together.  It's net rating is 17.5.  Of the 34 lineups with at least that many minutes together, only two have performed better.  In other words, Ime's preferred starting lineup works, and is one of the better lineups in the NBA.

Obviously there are some problems with the overall construction of the team, but the starting lineup has been remarkably successful, and hopefully we get to see it nightly for the next few weeks.  (My preferred closing lineups, with Richardson or Grant replacing Horford, also work, with a combined net rating of about 28 in 50 minutes combined).  The starters with Schroeder instead of Smart have also proven very effective in 5 games, 46 minutes of action (27.8 net rating).  Somewhere buried in this mess is a quality team.  Hopefully we can get a run of everyone being available for several games in a row to see it.

The talent is there it just needs to be managed.
The talent is there for what; 8th place?
I think on paper we have as much talent as any Eastern team outside the top 5

Lineups composed of only our top 8 have a net rating of 3.8. It probably could be better than that with a different coach, but yeah, it's not a bad front part of the roster.  The problem is those 8 are rarely (if ever) all available, and dipping lower than that into the rotation, even when paired with the top guys, tends to drag down performance considerably.  More than half of the minutes played this season (55%) include someone from outside that core 8.  I just want to see that group get a few weeks together.  If I had time I'd see how Pritchard does when included with the other top 8.  My guess is he doesn't have too many minutes by himself with that group tho, as opposed to also playing with Langford, Nesmith, Freedom, etc.

It's a long season. You are going to need more than 8 players during the year.

I mean, thatís obvious.  And thatís the point, really. There are all these threads/comments about the two big lineup being the problem, but it isnít.  Or SchrŲder or Smart, but they arenít really.  Sometimes other players get criticized too, but of the top 8, when itís just them, weíre a good team.  Maybe not championship quality, but significantly better than .500.  A team that can maybe even win a series or two in the postseason.  The problem is we need more than 8 guys, and at least one of our 9-15 have been on the floor for the majority of minutes this year, and when they have been, things generally go south.  But if the top of the rotation can be available every night for a few weeks, or in the postseason, itís a very different team.

There's foul trouble there are injuries... Someone else is going to have to be playable. I thought Romeo was playing really well yesterday and should've gone a lot longer in the 4th.

Iím with you on Romeo.  I want him to be the 9th man, but itís a lot more up and down when he comes in with the top 8.  But as to injuries, the whole point is what this team is when itís healthy.  Thatís literally the thread title.

There is still foul trouble, Tatum last night, and back to backs. You may be able to get away with 8 during the playoffs but during the season you need at least 10.

You donít really need to that often on a given night.  Tatum had foul trouble and still got his usual 35 minutes.  8 man rotations are not unheard of in the playoffs.  In the regular season we probably arenít going to be killed by 12-15 minutes a night from the 9th man, but youíre hung up on the wrong point.  The point is that the top 8 guys form a good rotation, even with the coaching. They arenít what needs to be fixed.  Itís the cliff we drop off when anyone else comes in.  We can get a different rotation next year, but if weíre still relying on a similarly bad 9-15 next year it wonít matter.

Yeah, I fine with a tighter rotation if we make the playoffs. I understand you either need new guys or develop some that you already have. It's been like this for 8 years or so. Romeo last night was a good example of a time to let a guy run on a good night.

I'll quote Brad from the other thread with his interview.

https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=105942.0
Quote
When I was coaching, I used to say this all the time: Just because somebodyís not playing minutes doesnít mean theyíre not improving. And I think thatís huge. And I think Rob Williams is the greatest example. Rob didnít play much his first year, played a little bit his second year but was hurt for 50 games, played in one series out of three basically against Toronto, and now has taken two years later a step thatís pretty drastic as far as he can be a guy that can really, really help you win not only in the regular season but beyond. And I think we have to look at these guys as not only what they do in their minutes, but what theyíre doing in practice, what theyíre doing in the small group work. I believe in all three of them. Payton has gotten a lot more opportunity lately. Romeo got a lot more opportunity early. Romeoís last game was one of his best, or the last game that he played a lot of minutes, the Phoenix game. And then Paytonís been pretty consistent. And I have no doubt about Aaron. Like, I donít lose any sleep over what he can be. And he is in a little bit of a pinch numbers-wise with the guys we have. And weíll see how that all shakes itself out. But regardless of if he plays zero minutes or 25 minutes, heís going to have a successful career. Heís going to be a really good player.

I mean it worked with Timelord

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2022, 10:41:27 PM »

Online CBS_Take a Report

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 434
  • Tommy Points: 56
Gag me with a spoonÖ good teams find a way to thrive through moments like this.

We just arenít good enough. Period. We need a sense of urgency as a culture to change the complacency and acceptance of just average performance.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2022, 10:46:37 PM »

Offline csfansince60s

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6202
  • Tommy Points: 2221
Gag me with a spoonÖ good teams find a way to thrive through moments like this.

We just arenít good enough. Period. We need a sense of urgency as a culture to change the complacency and acceptance of just average performance.

TPÖexactly

Uchoka especially knows he has at least a year, probably two and shows no immediacy and pressure to change his incompetent, unimaginative, keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result ( stupid, I mean really dumb) mindset.


Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2022, 10:49:26 PM »

Offline csfansince60s

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6202
  • Tommy Points: 2221
Fingers crossed that on Friday we will have the top 8-9 players available all on the same night for the first time in what has to be months.  I was curious as to how often the Celtics had their most commonly used lineup available, so I went to the lineup stats on NBA.com.  What I found is that our starting unit has played the 34th most minutes together of any 5-man combination, although it has only been available for 12 games (out of 46), which puts it outside the top 100 for games played by a 5-man lineup.  What I also found is that it performs really well together.  It's net rating is 17.5.  Of the 34 lineups with at least that many minutes together, only two have performed better.  In other words, Ime's preferred starting lineup works, and is one of the better lineups in the NBA.

Obviously there are some problems with the overall construction of the team, but the starting lineup has been remarkably successful, and hopefully we get to see it nightly for the next few weeks.  (My preferred closing lineups, with Richardson or Grant replacing Horford, also work, with a combined net rating of about 28 in 50 minutes combined).  The starters with Schroeder instead of Smart have also proven very effective in 5 games, 46 minutes of action (27.8 net rating).  Somewhere buried in this mess is a quality team.  Hopefully we can get a run of everyone being available for several games in a row to see it.

The talent is there it just needs to be managed.
The talent is there for what; 8th place?
I think on paper we have as much talent as any Eastern team outside the top 5

Lineups composed of only our top 8 have a net rating of 3.8. It probably could be better than that with a different coach, but yeah, it's not a bad front part of the roster.  The problem is those 8 are rarely (if ever) all available, and dipping lower than that into the rotation, even when paired with the top guys, tends to drag down performance considerably.  More than half of the minutes played this season (55%) include someone from outside that core 8.  I just want to see that group get a few weeks together.  If I had time I'd see how Pritchard does when included with the other top 8.  My guess is he doesn't have too many minutes by himself with that group tho, as opposed to also playing with Langford, Nesmith, Freedom, etc.

It's a long season. You are going to need more than 8 players during the year.

I mean, thatís obvious.  And thatís the point, really. There are all these threads/comments about the two big lineup being the problem, but it isnít.  Or SchrŲder or Smart, but they arenít really.  Sometimes other players get criticized too, but of the top 8, when itís just them, weíre a good team.  Maybe not championship quality, but significantly better than .500.  A team that can maybe even win a series or two in the postseason.  The problem is we need more than 8 guys, and at least one of our 9-15 have been on the floor for the majority of minutes this year, and when they have been, things generally go south.  But if the top of the rotation can be available every night for a few weeks, or in the postseason, itís a very different team.

There's foul trouble there are injuries... Someone else is going to have to be playable. I thought Romeo was playing really well yesterday and should've gone a lot longer in the 4th.

Iím with you on Romeo.  I want him to be the 9th man, but itís a lot more up and down when he comes in with the top 8.  But as to injuries, the whole point is what this team is when itís healthy.  Thatís literally the thread title.

There is still foul trouble, Tatum last night, and back to backs. You may be able to get away with 8 during the playoffs but during the season you need at least 10.


TPÖÖyupÖ.exactlyÖÖJosh Richardson was gassed by the end of the second quarter Öhe only played 25, but seemed like he was in most of the first halfway

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2022, 11:28:33 PM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4865
  • Tommy Points: 481
If the Cs shot the 3 point shot as well as they did last year, they would have the 4th best point differential in the NBA. A change in personnel (Fournier and Kemba most notably) hurt them in that regard, but other players have fallen off considerably. Most notably, JT is shooting 33.7% vs. 37.3% from beyond the arc, which alone translates into 1.6 ppg. He alone would move the Cs net scoring margin into the 7th best in the NBA regardless of the loss of good shooters if he were shooting 3s as well as last year (and JT's always been a good shooter beyond the arc). His consistency has been way off, too, and he was listed recently as one of the ten least consistent players by ESPN stats guru Kevin Pelton. Of NBA stars, only he and Steph Curry were in that category.

The other obvious factor is how badly the Cs have played in close games. The Cs are tied for 16th in W/L% vs. their net margin being 12th. Usually an indicator of winning close games. Last I knew, the Cs were 2nd worst in games decided by 5 points, and according to the expanded standings at ESPN, they're tied for 25th in W/L% in 3 point games and have the 2nd most losses (6) to Indy's 10. To me, that's maturity, leadership, and coaching, none of which are strong points currently.

IOW, I don't think health alone would transform us into contender status though we definitely would be better.

In regards to 3FG% noted above:


Quote
CelticsBlog @celticsblog - 2h

Quote
RT @ethman43: Per Basketball Reference, the NBA as a whole is shooting its worst 3PT% (34.8%) since 2003-04 and its second-worst this century despite an all-time high in attempts per gam[/b]e

Another epidemic that has hit in BOS too.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2022, 12:34:13 AM »

Offline LilRip

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6384
  • Tommy Points: 355
If the Cs shot the 3 point shot as well as they did last year, they would have the 4th best point differential in the NBA. A change in personnel (Fournier and Kemba most notably) hurt them in that regard, but other players have fallen off considerably. Most notably, JT is shooting 33.7% vs. 37.3% from beyond the arc, which alone translates into 1.6 ppg. He alone would move the Cs net scoring margin into the 7th best in the NBA regardless of the loss of good shooters if he were shooting 3s as well as last year (and JT's always been a good shooter beyond the arc). His consistency has been way off, too, and he was listed recently as one of the ten least consistent players by ESPN stats guru Kevin Pelton. Of NBA stars, only he and Steph Curry were in that category.

The other obvious factor is how badly the Cs have played in close games. The Cs are tied for 16th in W/L% vs. their net margin being 12th. Usually an indicator of winning close games. Last I knew, the Cs were 2nd worst in games decided by 5 points, and according to the expanded standings at ESPN, they're tied for 25th in W/L% in 3 point games and have the 2nd most losses (6) to Indy's 10. To me, that's maturity, leadership, and coaching, none of which are strong points currently.

IOW, I don't think health alone would transform us into contender status though we definitely would be better.

In regards to 3FG% noted above:


Quote
CelticsBlog @celticsblog - 2h

Quote
RT @ethman43: Per Basketball Reference, the NBA as a whole is shooting its worst 3PT% (34.8%) since 2003-04 and its second-worst this century despite an all-time high in attempts per gam[/b]e

Another epidemic that has hit in BOS too.

I was wondering about this too, that shooting has fallen off this year. I have two tin foil hat theories as to why:
1. New ball : I remember there was a new ball tried out I think around the time when Nash was winning MVPs and players hated it (less grip I think?). They eventually moved back to the old ball and things fixed itself

2. Increased physicality: defenses are allowed to, well, defend this year. And players arenít ready for it or theyíre more gassed.
- LilRip

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2022, 12:55:45 AM »

Offline pokeKingCurtis

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
  • Tommy Points: 272
If the Cs shot the 3 point shot as well as they did last year, they would have the 4th best point differential in the NBA. A change in personnel (Fournier and Kemba most notably) hurt them in that regard, but other players have fallen off considerably. Most notably, JT is shooting 33.7% vs. 37.3% from beyond the arc, which alone translates into 1.6 ppg. He alone would move the Cs net scoring margin into the 7th best in the NBA regardless of the loss of good shooters if he were shooting 3s as well as last year (and JT's always been a good shooter beyond the arc). His consistency has been way off, too, and he was listed recently as one of the ten least consistent players by ESPN stats guru Kevin Pelton. Of NBA stars, only he and Steph Curry were in that category.

The other obvious factor is how badly the Cs have played in close games. The Cs are tied for 16th in W/L% vs. their net margin being 12th. Usually an indicator of winning close games. Last I knew, the Cs were 2nd worst in games decided by 5 points, and according to the expanded standings at ESPN, they're tied for 25th in W/L% in 3 point games and have the 2nd most losses (6) to Indy's 10. To me, that's maturity, leadership, and coaching, none of which are strong points currently.

IOW, I don't think health alone would transform us into contender status though we definitely would be better.

In regards to 3FG% noted above:


Quote
CelticsBlog @celticsblog - 2h

Quote
RT @ethman43: Per Basketball Reference, the NBA as a whole is shooting its worst 3PT% (34.8%) since 2003-04 and its second-worst this century despite an all-time high in attempts per gam[/b]e

Another epidemic that has hit in BOS too.

I was wondering about this too, that shooting has fallen off this year. I have two tin foil hat theories as to why:
1. New ball : I remember there was a new ball tried out I think around the time when Nash was winning MVPs and players hated it (less grip I think?). They eventually moved back to the old ball and things fixed itself

2. Increased physicality: defenses are allowed to, well, defend this year. And players arenít ready for it or theyíre more gassed.

That's why teams are so up and down. I thought the whole league was just tired - but maybe you're right, more physicality (and new ball...).

1st and 8th seed in the East is separated by, what, 5 games?

Hate to keep beating the same drum, but Joel Embiid and Derozan, two mid-range beasts, are leading the pack.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2022, 01:00:23 AM »

Offline SparzWizard

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12032
  • Tommy Points: 722
If the Cs shot the 3 point shot as well as they did last year, they would have the 4th best point differential in the NBA. A change in personnel (Fournier and Kemba most notably) hurt them in that regard, but other players have fallen off considerably. Most notably, JT is shooting 33.7% vs. 37.3% from beyond the arc, which alone translates into 1.6 ppg. He alone would move the Cs net scoring margin into the 7th best in the NBA regardless of the loss of good shooters if he were shooting 3s as well as last year (and JT's always been a good shooter beyond the arc). His consistency has been way off, too, and he was listed recently as one of the ten least consistent players by ESPN stats guru Kevin Pelton. Of NBA stars, only he and Steph Curry were in that category.

The other obvious factor is how badly the Cs have played in close games. The Cs are tied for 16th in W/L% vs. their net margin being 12th. Usually an indicator of winning close games. Last I knew, the Cs were 2nd worst in games decided by 5 points, and according to the expanded standings at ESPN, they're tied for 25th in W/L% in 3 point games and have the 2nd most losses (6) to Indy's 10. To me, that's maturity, leadership, and coaching, none of which are strong points currently.

IOW, I don't think health alone would transform us into contender status though we definitely would be better.

In regards to 3FG% noted above:


Quote
CelticsBlog @celticsblog - 2h

Quote
RT @ethman43: Per Basketball Reference, the NBA as a whole is shooting its worst 3PT% (34.8%) since 2003-04 and its second-worst this century despite an all-time high in attempts per gam[/b]e

Another epidemic that has hit in BOS too.

I was wondering about this too, that shooting has fallen off this year. I have two tin foil hat theories as to why:
1. New ball : I remember there was a new ball tried out I think around the time when Nash was winning MVPs and players hated it (less grip I think?). They eventually moved back to the old ball and things fixed itself

2. Increased physicality: defenses are allowed to, well, defend this year. And players arenít ready for it or theyíre more gassed.

That's why teams are so up and down. I thought the whole league was just tired - but maybe you're right, more physicality (and new ball...).

1st and 8th seed in the East is separated by, what, 5 games?

Hate to keep beating the same drum, but Joel Embiid and Derozan, two mid-range beasts, are leading the pack.

Now we don't have to hear that "the east is weak"

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #27 on: January 21, 2022, 01:06:40 AM »

Offline colincb

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4865
  • Tommy Points: 481
If the Cs shot the 3 point shot as well as they did last year, they would have the 4th best point differential in the NBA. A change in personnel (Fournier and Kemba most notably) hurt them in that regard, but other players have fallen off considerably. Most notably, JT is shooting 33.7% vs. 37.3% from beyond the arc, which alone translates into 1.6 ppg. He alone would move the Cs net scoring margin into the 7th best in the NBA regardless of the loss of good shooters if he were shooting 3s as well as last year (and JT's always been a good shooter beyond the arc). His consistency has been way off, too, and he was listed recently as one of the ten least consistent players by ESPN stats guru Kevin Pelton. Of NBA stars, only he and Steph Curry were in that category.

The other obvious factor is how badly the Cs have played in close games. The Cs are tied for 16th in W/L% vs. their net margin being 12th. Usually an indicator of winning close games. Last I knew, the Cs were 2nd worst in games decided by 5 points, and according to the expanded standings at ESPN, they're tied for 25th in W/L% in 3 point games and have the 2nd most losses (6) to Indy's 10. To me, that's maturity, leadership, and coaching, none of which are strong points currently.

IOW, I don't think health alone would transform us into contender status though we definitely would be better.

In regards to 3FG% noted above:


Quote
CelticsBlog @celticsblog - 2h

Quote
RT @ethman43: Per Basketball Reference, the NBA as a whole is shooting its worst 3PT% (34.8%) since 2003-04 and its second-worst this century despite an all-time high in attempts per gam[/b]e

Another epidemic that has hit in BOS too.

I was wondering about this too, that shooting has fallen off this year. I have two tin foil hat theories as to why:
1. New ball : I remember there was a new ball tried out I think around the time when Nash was winning MVPs and players hated it (less grip I think?). They eventually moved back to the old ball and things fixed itself

2. Increased physicality: defenses are allowed to, well, defend this year. And players arenít ready for it or theyíre more gassed.

Cs were 11th in 3FG% last year vs. 23rd this season. Whatever the cause, they've experienced the negative effects more than the rest of the NBA.

Otherwise, I'd go with your second theory and also throw in the possibility that Tatum, who is the chief culprit, might be gassed between Covid effects and playing in the Olympics during the off-season.

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #28 on: January 21, 2022, 02:16:20 AM »

Offline Muzzy66

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 576
  • Tommy Points: 72
I really don't think health is the reason for this team's problems.   I'm sure it doesn't help, by any means, but I don't think it's to blame. 

1. Lots of NBA teams have had guys in and out all over the place these past few years, so I don't like using it as an excuse. 

2. I don't think health explains the WAY the team loses.  Getting blown out by bottom tier lottery teams.  Getting stuck in 20 point holes and then trying to desperately go on runs to dig themselves out.  Picking up 20 point leads and then getting blown out in the second half.  Constant hero/ ISO ball and apparent lack of trust in teammates.  These seem like effort and/or attitude problems, not "lack of available talent" problems. 

3. I've seen some Celtics teams that lacked outright talent, but played really hard and always tried their best.  Those teams had bad win records, but the games were always full of energy, and guys looked like they enjoyed being there.  That's not what I'm seeing this past year or two.  These guys half the time look like they don't care, and they are borderline miserable. 

Re: Maybe the C's just need to be healthy?
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2022, 08:52:37 AM »

Online Celtics2021

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3527
  • Tommy Points: 323
Weíve had our top 8 available for 6 games in a row now, by far the longest stretch of the season.  Weíre 5-1 in that stretch.  Some of the competition hasnít been the stiffest, itís true, but weíve also had our three largest wins (by point differential) in this period.  Maybe the Cís just needed to be healthy.