Path to victory?

[PhoSita]

Some notable numbers:


MIL is 14th in the NBA in free throws attempted per offensive play.

BOS is 30th.


MIL is 3rd in the league in 3 point rate (41.8% of FGA)

BOS is 9th (38.1% of FGA)



MIL is 3rd in the league in points in the paint per game (53.4)

BOS is 25th with 44.2 points in the paint per game.


MIL and BOS are 6th and 7th, respectively, in fastbreak points per game.


MIL is 27th in the league in forcing turnovers -- their opponents only turn the ball over on 12.4% of their possessions

BOS is 8th in the league in forcing turnovers, with 14.6% of opponent possessions leading to turnovers.


MIL and BOS are 4th and 5th in the league, respectively, in protecting the ball (turnovers per possession).



MIL and BOS are both in the bottom 7 teams in terms of OREB%.

MIL is #1 in the league in DREB% (tied w/ Utah)

BOS is 13th in DREB%.




For the Celts to win, they're going to have to find a way to close the free throw gap, force a lot of turnovers, and scorch the nets from deep.

The Bucks are going to try to clean the glass, take and make a lot of threes, limit turnovers, and pound the paint. 

The Celts have to find a way to disrupt multiple parts of that plan in order to pull the upset.

Other important stats:

Milwaukee is 22nd in the league for opponent 3pfg% (Boston is 6th) and 30th in the league for opponent 3pfg made per game (Boston is 15th).

I think given each team’s respective offensive philosophies and high rates of three point shots, this is a major reason why we matchup well with Milwaukee. Will still need to make those shots, but Milwaukee’s D is oriented toward protecting the paint with less emphasis on challenging shooters, which bodes well for our (unfortunately) three-heavy offense.

I'm going to be very interested to see how the Celts try to play this. 

They could try to make the series into "Anybody but Giannis has to beat us" by selling out to cut off Giannis's lanes the basket and letting the supporting guys try to make plays off the dribble or shoot threes.

The other way to go would be to cover Giannis more conservatively and stay at home on all the shooters, betting that Giannis isn't going to be able to average 45 points a game on mostly paint attempts. 


The upside of the latter strategy is that Giannis doesn't have a three pointer to punish defenses that give him a lot of room, and despite his high scoring this year it's hard to imagine him scoring half of his team's points.

On the other hand, it's hard to imagine a strategy of "let the guy who scores 77% within 3 feet have an easy time getting to the rim" working.


Yet the Bucks have a lot of good shooters, even without Brogdon.  Can the Celts really afford to dare the supporting guys to shoot?



Feels to me like the Celts are going to need their own shooters to get absolutely red hot for the majority of the series and combine that with either (1) Giannis getting confused / freaked out by some defensive wrinkle the Celts throw at him or (2) the Bucks shooters going cold, perhaps as a result of the Celts daring them to shoot.



Reminds me a lot of the Celts' various battles against LeBron.  Hopefully this one turns out better than most of those battles did.


I'll say this --- the Bucks aren't going to leave the door open for the Celts to steal games by going cold for several minutes at a time, the way the Pacers did.

[Walker Wiggle]

Some unsourced thoughts:

- When Lopez is defending Horford, pick and roll that matchup to death and hope Al makes his 3s.
- When Giannis defends Horford, take him into the post. Horford has had success against him down there, and you have a chance to get Giannis in foul trouble.
- Terry has to continue to hassle their ballhandlers full court, like he did in round 1. His defensive effort was unbelievable.
- Start Morris and put him on Lopez, with Al defending Giannis. (I think this will 175 Tremont St, Boston, MA 02111 Stevens's choice.) I'm willing to accept Lopez posting Morris. And on offense, you've got multiple shooters.
- Give Semi a good 10-15 minutes off the bench to defend Giannis and let him body him up and use his fouls.
- Down the stretch, they are gonna put Lopez on the bench and Giannis at the 5. Either post Horford against Giannis, or pick and roll with Kyrie to get him iso'd against Middleton, Mirotic, or whoever you prefer.

There's a blueprint out there. Celtics can win this thing, even as I believe the Bucks are legit and deserve to be favored.

[droopdog7]

Some unsourced thoughts:

- When Lopez is defending Horford, pick and roll that matchup to death and hope Al makes his 3s.
- When Giannis defends Horford, take him into the post. Horford has had success against him down there, and you have a chance to get Giannis in foul trouble.
- Terry has to continue to hassle their ballhandlers full court, like he did in round 1. His defensive effort was unbelievable.
- Start Morris and put him on Lopez, with Al defending Giannis. (I think this will 175 Tremont St, Boston, MA 02111 Stevens's choice.) I'm willing to accept Lopez posting Morris. And on offense, you've got multiple shooters.
- Give Semi a good 10-15 minutes off the bench to defend Giannis and let him body him up and use his fouls.
- Down the stretch, they are gonna put Lopez on the bench and Giannis at the 5. Either post Horford against Giannis, or pick and roll with Kyrie to get him iso'd against Middleton, Mirotic, or whoever you prefer.

There's a blueprint out there. Celtics can win this thing, even as I believe the Bucks are legit and deserve to be favored.

Good stuff, though I would think long and hard about starting Semi on Giannis.  I know it would be a dramatic shift from what we're doing but I would prefer to save horford for late game situations.  I would not want Al to wear out.

[RPGenerate]

For this series, I think Kyrie and, to a lesser extent, Tatum and Horford are the key to this series. We need to exploit every mismatch we can, and that trio needs to consistently take advantage of it. Make Milwaukee pay for every second Lopez, Mirotic, and Ersan aren't in warm up clothes. Constantly pick on and frustrate Bledsoe. Make Giannis play 40 minutes a game at center.

[GreenEnvy]

What does everyone make of the Horford/Bud connection.

Does Horford having played for Bud in the past mean he has insight into how he operates and might he have some insight into beating the Bucks then?

Does Bud know how to cover Horford in a way other coaches don't?

I'm inclined to think Horford isn't going to Horford no matter what but hopefully he's got Brad's ear about Bud's tendencies. That could be an advantage.

The NBA is about ability and skill above all else.  Sure, coaches implement strategy but it's not rocket science really. 

The team with the better players that makes shots will win.  I don't think the Al-Bud connection means much if anything.

So, you think that Warriors team that beat the 67-win Mavs in 2007 was because they had betters players that made shots?

Well, I would add better players and chemistry but yeah, those are more important IMO than coaching.  Or should I say, the x's and o's in the NBA are mostly the same. 

In addition, there is error.  So perhaps the 67 win team is indeed better than that warriors team.  But perhaps the warriors team wins the series 1 in 20 times.  And they just happened to strike gold.

But my basic point, and I would be surprised if many disagree, is that the NBA is a players league.  Not exactly a newsflash I don't believe.

The original quote was questioning whether there was anything to make of Bud/Horford that could be advantageous to the other team.

And that’s what happened in the series I mentioned, Nelson knew that team far too well. That Mavs team very well may beat the other six playoff teams in the west, and the Warriors very well may lose to the other six, but it wasn’t just “Warriors got hot and hit that 5% chance.”

Good coaching matters. How often do you see a team go far with a terrible coach (Lue the obvious exception do to an ATG player in a very weak East)? Then you have great coaches who continually create a system that succeeds despite turnover/injuries.

Obviously this is a player’s league, but that’s a clear pivot from the original quote. Coaches of previous teams (and players of previous coaches) can make a big difference. Wasn’t Casey’s Pistons 3-0 against the Raptors this season? Small sample size, sure. But I think more than just a coincidence (or a 1 in 20 chance).

[droopdog7]

What does everyone make of the Horford/Bud connection.

Does Horford having played for Bud in the past mean he has insight into how he operates and might he have some insight into beating the Bucks then?

Does Bud know how to cover Horford in a way other coaches don't?

I'm inclined to think Horford isn't going to Horford no matter what but hopefully he's got Brad's ear about Bud's tendencies. That could be an advantage.

The NBA is about ability and skill above all else.  Sure, coaches implement strategy but it's not rocket science really. 

The team with the better players that makes shots will win.  I don't think the Al-Bud connection means much if anything.

So, you think that Warriors team that beat the 67-win Mavs in 2007 was because they had betters players that made shots?

Well, I would add better players and chemistry but yeah, those are more important IMO than coaching.  Or should I say, the x's and o's in the NBA are mostly the same. 

In addition, there is error.  So perhaps the 67 win team is indeed better than that warriors team.  But perhaps the warriors team wins the series 1 in 20 times.  And they just happened to strike gold.

But my basic point, and I would be surprised if many disagree, is that the NBA is a players league.  Not exactly a newsflash I don't believe.

The original quote was questioning whether there was anything to make of Bud/Horford that could be advantageous to the other team.

And that’s what happened in the series I mentioned, Nelson knew that team far too well. That Mavs team very well may beat the other six playoff teams in the west, and the Warriors very well may lose to the other six, but it wasn’t just “Warriors got hot and hit that 5% chance.”

Good coaching matters. How often do you see a team go far with a terrible coach (Lue the obvious exception do to an ATG player in a very weak East)? Then you have great coaches who continually create a system that succeeds despite turnover/injuries.

Obviously this is a player’s league, but that’s a clear pivot from the original quote. Coaches of previous teams (and players of previous coaches) can make a big difference. Wasn’t Casey’s Pistons 3-0 against the Raptors this season? Small sample size, sure. But I think more than just a coincidence (or a 1 in 20 chance).

I get what was being said in the original post; and my response remains the same.  I don't think playing against a previous coach will make much, if any difference.  Coaches scout players and teams all day long.  They know what they're getting into.  They also know what plays the other teams run, and pretty much what the other team will try and do to them.  Like I said, not rocket science.

As far as the Dallas example, how many times has a previous coach gone up against a former team and lost?  So one example in a vacuum doesn't really prove a point.

Of course, I don't really mean to suggest that coaching doesn't matter at all.  Just that players make the difference.

[BASS_THUMPER]

Kyrie was never apart of are success last year..please i hope we dont lean on him this far in..

*sippin*

[GreenEnvy]

What does everyone make of the Horford/Bud connection.

Does Horford having played for Bud in the past mean he has insight into how he operates and might he have some insight into beating the Bucks then?

Does Bud know how to cover Horford in a way other coaches don't?

I'm inclined to think Horford isn't going to Horford no matter what but hopefully he's got Brad's ear about Bud's tendencies. That could be an advantage.

The NBA is about ability and skill above all else.  Sure, coaches implement strategy but it's not rocket science really. 

The team with the better players that makes shots will win.  I don't think the Al-Bud connection means much if anything.

So, you think that Warriors team that beat the 67-win Mavs in 2007 was because they had betters players that made shots?

Well, I would add better players and chemistry but yeah, those are more important IMO than coaching.  Or should I say, the x's and o's in the NBA are mostly the same. 

In addition, there is error.  So perhaps the 67 win team is indeed better than that warriors team.  But perhaps the warriors team wins the series 1 in 20 times.  And they just happened to strike gold.

But my basic point, and I would be surprised if many disagree, is that the NBA is a players league.  Not exactly a newsflash I don't believe.

The original quote was questioning whether there was anything to make of Bud/Horford that could be advantageous to the other team.

And that’s what happened in the series I mentioned, Nelson knew that team far too well. That Mavs team very well may beat the other six playoff teams in the west, and the Warriors very well may lose to the other six, but it wasn’t just “Warriors got hot and hit that 5% chance.”

Good coaching matters. How often do you see a team go far with a terrible coach (Lue the obvious exception do to an ATG player in a very weak East)? Then you have great coaches who continually create a system that succeeds despite turnover/injuries.

Obviously this is a player’s league, but that’s a clear pivot from the original quote. Coaches of previous teams (and players of previous coaches) can make a big difference. Wasn’t Casey’s Pistons 3-0 against the Raptors this season? Small sample size, sure. But I think more than just a coincidence (or a 1 in 20 chance).

I get what was being said in the original post; and my response remains the same.  I don't think playing against a previous coach will make much, if any difference.  Coaches scout players and teams all day long.  They know what they're getting into.  They also know what plays the other teams run, and pretty much what the other team will try and do to them.  Like I said, not rocket science.

As far as the Dallas example, how many times has a previous coach gone up against a former team and lost?  So one example in a vacuum doesn't really prove a point.

Of course, I don't really mean to suggest that coaching doesn't matter at all.  Just that players make the difference.

Right, so let’s chalk up a team that won a whopping 25 more games than their opponent to just having a cold week or two.

The fact that Nelson was the coach of the Mavs for like 8 seasons was purely coincidental. Mavs were either a fluke or choked (let’s ignore they were in the Finals the season before) at full strength to a .500 team.

Of course this is an outlier, but to prove that coaching absolutely can make THE difference, especially when their is intel beyond what you see in-game via scouting. Coaches and players know what happens in practice.

And I don’t know the statistics for former coaches (or players) vs. former teams. Do you? I have a case where a defending Finals team who ran away with the 1 seed got massively upset by a pedestrian team with their former coach at the helm. So, yes, I do believe coaching CAN make THE difference, even with inferior players.

[BASS_THUMPER]

He needs to bring the THUNDER like THOR!!!

[droopdog7]

What does everyone make of the Horford/Bud connection.

Does Horford having played for Bud in the past mean he has insight into how he operates and might he have some insight into beating the Bucks then?

Does Bud know how to cover Horford in a way other coaches don't?

I'm inclined to think Horford isn't going to Horford no matter what but hopefully he's got Brad's ear about Bud's tendencies. That could be an advantage.

The NBA is about ability and skill above all else.  Sure, coaches implement strategy but it's not rocket science really. 

The team with the better players that makes shots will win.  I don't think the Al-Bud connection means much if anything.

So, you think that Warriors team that beat the 67-win Mavs in 2007 was because they had betters players that made shots?

Well, I would add better players and chemistry but yeah, those are more important IMO than coaching.  Or should I say, the x's and o's in the NBA are mostly the same. 

In addition, there is error.  So perhaps the 67 win team is indeed better than that warriors team.  But perhaps the warriors team wins the series 1 in 20 times.  And they just happened to strike gold.

But my basic point, and I would be surprised if many disagree, is that the NBA is a players league.  Not exactly a newsflash I don't believe.

The original quote was questioning whether there was anything to make of Bud/Horford that could be advantageous to the other team.

And that’s what happened in the series I mentioned, Nelson knew that team far too well. That Mavs team very well may beat the other six playoff teams in the west, and the Warriors very well may lose to the other six, but it wasn’t just “Warriors got hot and hit that 5% chance.”

Good coaching matters. How often do you see a team go far with a terrible coach (Lue the obvious exception do to an ATG player in a very weak East)? Then you have great coaches who continually create a system that succeeds despite turnover/injuries.

Obviously this is a player’s league, but that’s a clear pivot from the original quote. Coaches of previous teams (and players of previous coaches) can make a big difference. Wasn’t Casey’s Pistons 3-0 against the Raptors this season? Small sample size, sure. But I think more than just a coincidence (or a 1 in 20 chance).

I get what was being said in the original post; and my response remains the same.  I don't think playing against a previous coach will make much, if any difference.  Coaches scout players and teams all day long.  They know what they're getting into.  They also know what plays the other teams run, and pretty much what the other team will try and do to them.  Like I said, not rocket science.

As far as the Dallas example, how many times has a previous coach gone up against a former team and lost?  So one example in a vacuum doesn't really prove a point.

Of course, I don't really mean to suggest that coaching doesn't matter at all.  Just that players make the difference.

Right, so let’s chalk up a team that won a whopping 25 more games than their opponent to just having a cold week or two.

The fact that Nelson was the coach of the Mavs for like 8 seasons was purely coincidental. Mavs were either a fluke or choked (let’s ignore they were in the Finals the season before) at full strength to a .500 team.

Of course this is an outlier, but to prove that coaching absolutely can make THE difference, especially when their is intel beyond what you see in-game via scouting. Coaches and players know what happens in practice.

And I don’t know the statistics for former coaches (or players) vs. former teams. Do you? I have a case where a defending Finals team who ran away with the 1 seed got massively upset by a pedestrian team with their former coach at the helm. So, yes, I do believe coaching CAN make THE difference, even with inferior players.

You said it yourself.  This is an outliers.  Outliers don’t prove points.  As I recall, the nuggets once beat the Sonics as an eight seed.  Did the nugget coach once coach the Sonics?  Um, no.