CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Chris22 on November 13, 2018, 12:56:04 PM

Title: We are too small
Post by: Chris22 on November 13, 2018, 12:56:04 PM
We keep getting killed inside by big, talented centers.

When will Brad get it? We need to start Baynes and play Williams.


Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Moranis on November 13, 2018, 01:31:37 PM
Baynes was -16 in just under 9 minutes of action against the Blazers.  It isn't like he did much of anything when he was on the floor except let the Blazers score at will.  He was better against the Jazz, but it isn't like Gobert's 17/15 isn't inline with his season averages. 
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Vermont Green on November 13, 2018, 01:36:02 PM
Everyone seems to be jumping on this bandwagon.  It seemed everyone was thrilled to be able to start Tatum, a skinny wing, at PF because this is the new NBA.  Now we are seeing the problems with that.

But the solution is not that easy.  The problem is that Baynes and Williams are not that good.  You would go from playing a good player but at the wrong position to playing a player that is not that good but at least at his natural position.

I have been saying from the summer that Hayward should come off the bench (I don't care what his contract amount is) and we should start another big.  Further, we need to keep enough size on the court throughout the game for the most part.  But playing Baynes and Williams more is still a problem in of itself.

The answer is probably to trade Rozier and a pick (for example) for a starting level big.  Or maybe you even consider trading Brown for an even better big.  Our roster has a lot of talent but right now, the talent is concentrated at the small and wing positions.  Other than Horford, we are really weak at the big positions.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: PhoSita on November 13, 2018, 01:57:00 PM
The issue isn't that the Celts are too small, per se, it's that playing small isn't benefiting the team to the extent that you would hope or expect.

They're generating plenty of three pointers, which is in part due to their smaller lineups.  But they don't hit a high enough percentage of their threes. 

They also don't create a lot of looks inside or free throws, which you would hope to get from having small guys matched up with bigger guys.


If you're not hitting a lot of threes and you're not blowing by slower defenders to get looks inside, what are you getting out of playing small?

For the Celts the benefits seem to actual come on the defensive end, i.e. it makes them more switchable and puts more guys on the floor who have quick hands to get steals.

Problem is, they get killed on the board and larger players can get a good number of easy looks inside (e.g. Nurkic).



Bottom line, they either need to get to the rim more or improve their shooting efficiency dramatically.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Rosco917 on November 13, 2018, 02:10:59 PM
I'm all in favor of playing big, at certain times, as long as it's paired with playing small too. The trick is to have a talented center to put into the game to play big.

Baynes is pretty limited other than playing good positional defense. He can't score from the paint, he barely protects the rim, god knows he can't shoot the 3 anymore. In fact, his entire shot looks different somehow too.

Al looks like he's just starting to age a little. His effectiveness per minutes played, judging from the eye test method looks to be slipping lately. Don't forget there are a lot of miles on Al.   
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: KGBirdBias on November 13, 2018, 03:42:36 PM
I agree that Williams needs to play. If a big doesn't shoot a 3, Stevens won't play him. LOL

Anything Williams give you is a bonus. Blocks, near blocks, changed shots, rebounds, hustle buckets, dunks and fouls is all gravy.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Surferdad on November 13, 2018, 04:53:02 PM
Quote
The problem is that Baynes and Williams are not that good. 
Pretty much.  I really don't think there's much that Brad can do rotation-wise.  If I were Ainge, I would look to make a trade before the deadline for a good big with better versatility.  I see no point in riding out the season this way...Horford is getting older, Kyrie could still bolt, Rozier is expiring...go all in on this season!
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 13, 2018, 05:23:18 PM
EAT MOR Chicken
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Kyriefor3 on November 13, 2018, 05:26:30 PM
I really feel like danny should try to explore options for WCS give us some size and points in the paint.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: hwangjini_1 on November 13, 2018, 05:35:48 PM
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: ozgod on November 13, 2018, 06:00:01 PM
For the Celts the benefits seem to actual come on the defensive end, i.e. it makes them more switchable and puts more guys on the floor who have quick hands to get steals.

Problem is, they get killed on the board and larger players can get a good number of easy looks inside (e.g. Nurkic).

Bottom line, they either need to get to the rim more or improve their shooting efficiency dramatically.

This is it in a nutshell.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: mmmmm on November 13, 2018, 06:14:40 PM
Baynes was -16 in just under 9 minutes of action against the Blazers.  It isn't like he did much of anything when he was on the floor except let the Blazers score at will.  He was better against the Jazz, but it isn't like Gobert's 17/15 isn't inline with his season averages.

I don't think those numbers really tell a useful story.

The problem we have had with size is a two-big-body problem that we currently keep throwing one big body at.   

Basically, what teams have been doing to us is looking to see if Horford plays to switch or double on the ball-handler.   In our typical 'small' configuration, with only one big on the floor, that means that an undersized SG/SF-sized guy has to pick up the roller, who is (lately) typically a seven footer.   That's the mismatch that teams are exploiting of late.  Alternatively, if Al doesn't switch, then our guard has to fight through or under the pick to stay on the handler.   That creates a big advantage for the handler.   Hence we've been getting killed alternatively by either rolling bigs or quick scoring guards.

When Horford has been on the floor this season, it hasn't been with baynes.   Horford has played only 3.5% of his total minutes with Baynes (and only two possessions with Theis, just 7 possessions with Williams and none with Yabusele) this season.   That means that our "PF" this year with Horford has primarily been fulfilled by one of our various wings.

Similarly, Baynes has shared the floor with Horford on only 10.3% of his own minutes and none with Theis, Yabusele or Williams.

In other words, we are playing almost exclusively with just one 'true big' on the floor at a time.  And that's been true for Baynes and Theis (just 10.4% of his possessions have been with another big on the floor) as well as Horford.   For good or bad, Brad has gone all-in on playing with just one big on the floor the vast majority of the time.

So, when you cite that the team played poorly with Baynes on the floor in the last game, that isn't really addressing what folks in this thread are calling for.

Because what they are suggesting is that we try playing both Baynes and Horford on the floor at the same time.

Shocking thought, I know.

It's only something that worked really, really, really well all last season!!!!

And this isn't about just how good Aron Baynes is or not.  One doesn't have to claim he's an all-star to see the reality that playing him WITH Al works really well.    Al Horford has played soooo much better for us since he came here when he's been able to play the 4, with a true big man sharing the floor with him.

Last year, Al played about 43% of his minutes at the 4.   And his differential PER at the 4 was +2.0 compared to at the 5.   The team was a +10.6 with Al & Aron up front as opposed to +8.0 with Al as the only big.

So far, this year's strategy of playing almost exclusively with only one 'true big' on the floor is getting mixed results.  We started off strong on defense, but lately, teams with size seem to be picking on it using pick & roll in a very targeted fashion.   A lot of that would be neutralized if the small lineup were to return some of the offensive benefits that it is supposed to.  But for a variety of reasons the team has gotten off to a truly horrendous start offensively.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: nickagneta on November 13, 2018, 06:16:34 PM
The Celtics have the best defensive rating in the league. For all the crying about defense we hell Indy, Portland and Phoenix in regular time to 100 points each. In Indy, Phoenix and Denver the player that killed us were Oladipo, Booker and Murray. All guards.

Boston is also 7th in defensive rebounds per game and 11th in total rebounds per game.

What this team needs to do is get out of the shooting slump they are in. They generate more open looks in the league than anyone but are hitting those open looks at a terrible %.

We aren't too small 6'3" PG, 6'7" SG, 6'8" SF, 6'9" PF, 6'10' PF. And we are extremely long. We just need to improve our shooting. That's it.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: GreenEnvy on November 13, 2018, 06:25:53 PM
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.

I’m too lazy to look it up and am curious, what’s our rank in rebounding percentage?

I feel like that rank may be higher than it should because we force a lot more misses than the average team, although we probably play at a slower pace.

I don’t think we get killed on the glass but I also don’t think we are particularly great. Rozier is the only plus rebounder for his position, imo.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: nickagneta on November 13, 2018, 06:55:16 PM
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.

I’m too lazy to look it up and am curious, what’s our rank in rebounding percentage?

I feel like that rank may be higher than it should because we force a lot more misses than the average team, although we probably play at a slower pace.

I don’t think we get killed on the glass but I also don’t think we are particularly great. Rozier is the only plus rebounder for his position, imo.
We are 7th in defreb% and 20th in totreb% but we are so low in totreb% because we shoot the most perimeter shots in the NBA and make no attempt at offensive rebounding because we would rather get back on defense and stop fast breaks. Therefore we are last in the league in offreb%.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Surferdad on November 13, 2018, 06:56:46 PM
The Celtics have the best defensive rating in the league. For all the crying about defense we hell Indy, Portland and Phoenix in regular time to 100 points each. In Indy, Phoenix and Denver the player that killed us were Oladipo, Booker and Murray. All guards.

Boston is also 7th in defensive rebounds per game and 11th in total rebounds per game.

What this team needs to do is get out of the shooting slump they are in. They generate more open looks in the league than anyone but are hitting those open looks at a terrible %.

We aren't too small 6'3" PG, 6'7" SG, 6'8" SF, 6'9" PF, 6'10' PF. And we are extremely long. We just need to improve our shooting. That's it.
Nick, i’ve been saying the same thing in these threads. Higher fg% will cure a lot of ills.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: GreenEnvy on November 13, 2018, 07:06:32 PM
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.

I’m too lazy to look it up and am curious, what’s our rank in rebounding percentage?

I feel like that rank may be higher than it should because we force a lot more misses than the average team, although we probably play at a slower pace.

I don’t think we get killed on the glass but I also don’t think we are particularly great. Rozier is the only plus rebounder for his position, imo.
We are 7th in defreb% and 20th in totreb% but we are so low in totreb% because we shoot the most perimeter shots in the NBA and make no attempt at offensive rebounding because we would rather get back on defense and stop fast breaks. Therefore we are last in the league in offreb%.

So we are actually almost elite at defensive rebounding.

In addition to not crashing the offensive glass, I think we prefer to get back and set our defense rather than attempt an unlikely offensive board. So I can live with not going for offensive rebounds all the time as long as we continue to defend like we have been and limit their possessions.

In this era, a guy routinely going for an offensive rebound is likely to create a lot of 4-on-4 breaks which almost everyone can shoot threes now, so I think we get back by design.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: PhoSita on November 13, 2018, 07:10:30 PM


What this team needs to do is get out of the shooting slump they are in. They generate more open looks in the league than anyone but are hitting those open looks at a terrible %.




What I want to know about this "open looks" stat is -- who is getting those shots?

Subjectively, I feel like a lot of those open looks are for guys who the other team is happy to let shoot, i.e. Aron Baynes, Marcus Smart, Gordon Hayward (for now), Semi Ojeleye, etc.

Most players, even poor shooters, do well with open looks, but I do think it's worth figuring out just how good all these open looks are.  Because if the open looks are by and large for guys who are historically poor shooters, it may not be so easy to simply "shoot better."


Taking a look at the Celtics' shooting percentages ...

Kyrie is shooting 40.5% on threes, which is about as good as you could hope.

Morris is shooting a super unsustainable 48.4%.

Horford is wallowing at 27.6%.  We should expect that to improve for sure.  He accounts for 4.4 attempts per game.

Tatum is hitting 38.6% of his 4.4 attempts; that may go up, but it's probably around what we should expect.

Brown is hitting only 27.5%, similar to Horford.  I would expect him to end up closer to 36%.

Gordon is at 31.9% but it may not be reasonable to expect a ton of improvement there, at least for the near term.

Smart, Baynes, Semi, Theis ... these guys are hitting around 30-33%, which is what I would expect for them anyway.



So yeah ... Horford and Brown should get better.  Although I think it's important to note that if the both of them were shooting a combined 40% on their ~9 attempts per game, that would only net the Celts an additional 1.2 made threes per game, or about 3.6 points per game.  That said, better shooting from those two would make the starting lineup a lot more potent and may open up scoring opportunities in other areas.

Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: jc3celticsphan on November 13, 2018, 07:16:32 PM
We keep getting killed inside by big, talented centers.

When will Brad get it? We need to start Baynes and play Williams.
williams deserves PT. it kind of just hit me today the modern nba can use more legnthy athletics players tatum seems to be that build. not a fan of baynes however he can shoot so i hope that changes. quick

It seems we could use another SG/SF having two PG's probably isn't helping this lol
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Chris22 on November 13, 2018, 07:17:45 PM
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.

You haven't been watching the last few games.

We need interior defense and rebounds.

Start Baynes and play Williams.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: nickagneta on November 13, 2018, 07:55:45 PM
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.

You haven't been watching the last few games.

We need interior defense and rebounds.

Start Baynes and play Williams.
We held Portland to 17 points below their average points scored per game. We held the Blazers two biggest scorers to 7 points below their average and 6 points below their average. We shot a paltry 33% from three. If we shoot a good 38%from three we win the game by two. Size of players did not cost us the Portland game. Missing open three pointers did.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 13, 2018, 08:34:18 PM
It seems other teams have small ball guys like us now and it has lost its magic.   The trouble is they also have bigs to punish us, too.  I have always thought small as a tactical option in a game, not to be the basis of your primary basketball system.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: moiso on November 13, 2018, 09:03:01 PM
We keep getting killed inside by big, talented centers.

When will Brad get it? We need to start Baynes and play Williams.
williams deserves PT. it kind of just hit me today the modern nba can use more legnthy athletics players tatum seems to be that build. not a fan of baynes however he can shoot so i hope that changes. quick

It seems we could use another SG/SF having two PG's probably isn't helping this lol
How do you know what PT Williams deserves?  Are you at the practices?  Do you understand the nuances of the game better than Brad Stevens?  Williams is probably the most fascinating player we have due to his freakish tools and athleticism.  He’s probably the guy I’d most like watch and he probably makes the most spectacular plays.  But I’m sure he is getting the amount of PT that he deserves at this point.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: PhoSita on November 13, 2018, 09:05:01 PM
It seems other teams have small ball guys like us now and it has lost its magic.   

The trick now is to be able to play "small" while nonetheless fielding a team that gives up nothing in height or wingspan.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: moiso on November 13, 2018, 09:06:58 PM
I really feel like danny should try to explore options for WCS give us some size and points in the paint.
Too bad we didn’t grab him last year when nobody liked him all that much.  He’s playing very well this year and I’m sure the Kings would be looking for a lot more at this point in time.  I like the idea though.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Chris22 on November 13, 2018, 09:18:16 PM
In our last three losses....

Denver outrebounded us by 7.
Utah outrebounded us by 17.
Portland outrebounded us by 13.

Plus, the big centers are scoring inside on us at will.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: SHAQATTACK on November 13, 2018, 10:14:20 PM
In our last three losses....

Denver outrebounded us by 7.
Utah outrebounded us by 17.
Portland outrebounded us by 13.

Plus, the big centers are scoring inside on us at will.


th lebron era has begun to fade.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: Celtics4ever on November 14, 2018, 06:06:43 AM
Quote
The trick now is to be able to play "small" while nonetheless fielding a team that gives up nothing in height or wingspan.

Agree, but we made it our primary option.
Title: Re: We are too small
Post by: mmmmm on November 14, 2018, 08:43:02 AM
Quote
The trick now is to be able to play "small" while nonetheless fielding a team that gives up nothing in height or wingspan.

Agree, but we made it our primary option.

So far this season, it's been nearly our _only_ option, with Brad opting to floor just one "true big" (any of Al, Baynes, Theis, Yabusele or Williams) over 90% of the time.

Considering that we are also putting two "smalls" (any of Kyrie, Rozier, Smart or Wanamaker) on the floor a lot, that means we are putting a lot of very small lineups on the floor.

As many have noted, this didn't hurt us on defense for the first 9 games -- we were pretty awesome on D through that.  But teams seem to have been specifically targeting it the last few games.

Well, the NBA is a game of adjustments.  Lets see how Brad adjusts.