5-0 and cruising

[A Future of Stevens]

I know we have drastically increased our post touches compared to last year (heading into the Philly game.)

I just don't know what play style people want us to do specifically against the Sixers. Posting up would be silly with Embiid lurking. I also find that Embiid tends not to get fouls called on him when he is scoring with silly efficiency. It would be hard to attack off the dribble when he plays like that.

Getting the three going would be our biggest advantage against Embiid in his prime.

[jpotter33]

Some of this is certainly schedule related, too. While most of the top record teams have a similar strength of schedule thus far, all of our competitors have played 2-3 times the home games that we have thus far. We’ve played 5 of our 7 games on the road thus far, compared to Philly, Milwaukee, and Minny playing 5 at home and Denver playing 6 of 9 at home.

We’ve certainly got problems to figure out - the bench, Joe’s one-dimensional gameplan, integration of new/existing pieces - but to only have two losses (both coming to top teams in OT or the last possession) with that much travel, road play, and difficulty of opponents is a positive in my book, regardless of how frustrating it is to let those two winnable games slip away.

[Celtics2021]

Boy some of the reactions on here at 5-2. How did you people survive between 2013-2015 

unrealistic expectations make a 2 game skid worse. I mean we had a thread comparing this team favorably to the Durant Warriors.  When you think this team is one of the greatest teams ever, this is the type of reaction you might see when the team loses.

And frankly, it bugs me that the pessimists get such a bad rap but the optimists seem to get off scot-free. Why isn't all the talk about "73 wins" and "better than the Warriors" getting shot down?

Over the last 7 years the Celtics have won close to 2/3 of their games and have have the second-best record in the NBA, and the pessmisists still freak out after virtually every single regular season loss.  It’s exhausting.

Pessimists didn't think we could win the title with the flaws we had/have. Were they right?

Frankly, no, they weren’t.  97% of teams don’t win every year.  Most of those teams don’t have a chance.  The Celtics continued success shows they absolutely have had a real chance every year, but chance implies luck is involved, and it truly is.  The Celtics haven’t quite had the luck coincide with their quality yet, but that lack of luck says nothing about the pessimists nightly complaints, even in wins.  It’s really easy to say a given team isn’t going to win a title, because all teams have flaws, but it doesn’t mean your analysis is rational if you only talk about those flaws (especially when some of those “flaws” are actually trade-offs for positive attributes of the team), and ignore the many more virtues that exist.

[angryguy77]

I know we have drastically increased our post touches compared to last year (heading into the Philly game.)

I just don't know what play style people want us to do specifically against the Sixers. Posting up would be silly with Embiid lurking. I also find that Embiid tends not to get fouls called on him when he is scoring with silly efficiency. It would be hard to attack off the dribble when he plays like that.

Getting the three going would be our biggest advantage against Embiid in his prime.

For starters, you don't have over 50% of your shots come from the 3.
If this team has no answer but that when facing a rim protector, then Wyc is going to have the record for biggest waste of money by an owner.

[angryguy77]

Boy some of the reactions on here at 5-2. How did you people survive between 2013-2015 

unrealistic expectations make a 2 game skid worse. I mean we had a thread comparing this team favorably to the Durant Warriors.  When you think this team is one of the greatest teams ever, this is the type of reaction you might see when the team loses.

And frankly, it bugs me that the pessimists get such a bad rap but the optimists seem to get off scot-free. Why isn't all the talk about "73 wins" and "better than the Warriors" getting shot down?

Over the last 7 years the Celtics have won close to 2/3 of their games and have have the second-best record in the NBA, and the pessmisists still freak out after virtually every single regular season loss.  It’s exhausting.

Pessimists didn't think we could win the title with the flaws we had/have. Were they right?

Frankly, no, they weren’t.  97% of teams don’t win every year.  Most of those teams don’t have a chance.  The Celtics continued success shows they absolutely have had a real chance every year, but chance implies luck is involved, and it truly is.  The Celtics haven’t quite had the luck coincide with their quality yet, but that lack of luck says nothing about the pessimists nightly complaints, even in wins.  It’s really easy to say a given team isn’t going to win a title, because all teams have flaws, but it doesn’t mean your analysis is rational if you only talk about those flaws (especially when some of those “flaws” are actually trade-offs for positive attributes of the team), and ignore the many more virtues that exist.

Why are we comparing a team who's window is open vs those that are closed? Yeah, you can't win it every year, but that's not an excuse for NEVER winning it.

All teams have flaws, but how many never fix them over the span of 5-7 years?

[Celtics2021]

Boy some of the reactions on here at 5-2. How did you people survive between 2013-2015 

unrealistic expectations make a 2 game skid worse. I mean we had a thread comparing this team favorably to the Durant Warriors.  When you think this team is one of the greatest teams ever, this is the type of reaction you might see when the team loses.

And frankly, it bugs me that the pessimists get such a bad rap but the optimists seem to get off scot-free. Why isn't all the talk about "73 wins" and "better than the Warriors" getting shot down?

Over the last 7 years the Celtics have won close to 2/3 of their games and have have the second-best record in the NBA, and the pessmisists still freak out after virtually every single regular season loss.  It’s exhausting.

Pessimists didn't think we could win the title with the flaws we had/have. Were they right?

Frankly, no, they weren’t.  97% of teams don’t win every year.  Most of those teams don’t have a chance.  The Celtics continued success shows they absolutely have had a real chance every year, but chance implies luck is involved, and it truly is.  The Celtics haven’t quite had the luck coincide with their quality yet, but that lack of luck says nothing about the pessimists nightly complaints, even in wins.  It’s really easy to say a given team isn’t going to win a title, because all teams have flaws, but it doesn’t mean your analysis is rational if you only talk about those flaws (especially when some of those “flaws” are actually trade-offs for positive attributes of the team), and ignore the many more virtues that exist.

Why are we comparing a team who's window is open vs those that are closed? Yeah, you can't win it every year, but that's not an excuse for NEVER winning it.

All teams have flaws, but how many never fix them over the span of 5-7 years?

If never fixing means you don’t win a title, clearly it’s the vast majority of teams, isn’t it? 

[A Future of Stevens]

I know we have drastically increased our post touches compared to last year (heading into the Philly game.)

I just don't know what play style people want us to do specifically against the Sixers. Posting up would be silly with Embiid lurking. I also find that Embiid tends not to get fouls called on him when he is scoring with silly efficiency. It would be hard to attack off the dribble when he plays like that.

Getting the three going would be our biggest advantage against Embiid in his prime.

For starters, you don't have over 50% of your shots come from the 3.
If this team has no answer but that when facing a rim protector, then Wyc is going to have the record for biggest waste of money by an owner.

But that is kind of my point. Like what SHOULD they do against Embiid when the whistle is only helping the towering shot blocker? You want that player pulled away from the paint. Posting wouldn't work. Pick and roll maybe? They play a drop, so the typical open shot would come from far out. It isn't like you want some of those 3pt attempts turning into long 2s.

[angryguy77]

I know we have drastically increased our post touches compared to last year (heading into the Philly game.)

I just don't know what play style people want us to do specifically against the Sixers. Posting up would be silly with Embiid lurking. I also find that Embiid tends not to get fouls called on him when he is scoring with silly efficiency. It would be hard to attack off the dribble when he plays like that.

Getting the three going would be our biggest advantage against Embiid in his prime.

For starters, you don't have over 50% of your shots come from the 3.
If this team has no answer but that when facing a rim protector, then Wyc is going to have the record for biggest waste of money by an owner.

But that is kind of my point. Like what SHOULD they do against Embiid when the whistle is only helping the towering shot blocker? You want that player pulled away from the paint. Posting wouldn't work. Pick and roll maybe? They play a drop, so the typical open shot would come from far out. It isn't like you want some of those 3pt attempts turning into long 2s.

Run some screens, cuts, and pass the ball more. I don't buy this notion that the only way to run an offense agaisnt a guy like him is to live and die by the 3.

[obnoxiousmime]

I know we have drastically increased our post touches compared to last year (heading into the Philly game.)

I just don't know what play style people want us to do specifically against the Sixers. Posting up would be silly with Embiid lurking. I also find that Embiid tends not to get fouls called on him when he is scoring with silly efficiency. It would be hard to attack off the dribble when he plays like that.

Getting the three going would be our biggest advantage against Embiid in his prime.

For starters, you don't have over 50% of your shots come from the 3.
If this team has no answer but that when facing a rim protector, then Wyc is going to have the record for biggest waste of money by an owner.

But that is kind of my point. Like what SHOULD they do against Embiid when the whistle is only helping the towering shot blocker? You want that player pulled away from the paint. Posting wouldn't work. Pick and roll maybe? They play a drop, so the typical open shot would come from far out. It isn't like you want some of those 3pt attempts turning into long 2s.

Run some screens, cuts, and pass the ball more. I don't buy this notion that the only way to run an offense agaisnt a guy like him is to live and die by the 3.

I really don't get why Celtics players not named Derrick White don't shoot more floaters. There was a play yesterday where Pritchard only had Embiid back on D, camped under the basket. Pritchard's decision was to robotically keep going towards him and then try to lay it up which was obviously blocked. I understand it's a difficult shot to master, but especially against the best teams with elite rim protection you can't just always fool yourself into trying to drive and "being aggressive" (like Jaylen is always saying he's doing but actually it just means he's making a bad decision to drive right into three guys). Especially with Pritchard's size limitations, he has to know a layup is never going to be a straightforward proposition for him.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Boy some of the reactions on here at 5-2. How did you people survive between 2013-2015 

unrealistic expectations make a 2 game skid worse. I mean we had a thread comparing this team favorably to the Durant Warriors.  When you think this team is one of the greatest teams ever, this is the type of reaction you might see when the team loses.

And frankly, it bugs me that the pessimists get such a bad rap but the optimists seem to get off scot-free. Why isn't all the talk about "73 wins" and "better than the Warriors" getting shot down?

Over the last 7 years the Celtics have won close to 2/3 of their games and have have the second-best record in the NBA, and the pessmisists still freak out after virtually every single regular season loss.  It’s exhausting.

Pessimists didn't think we could win the title with the flaws we had/have. Were they right?

Frankly, no, they weren’t.  97% of teams don’t win every year.  Most of those teams don’t have a chance.  The Celtics continued success shows they absolutely have had a real chance every year, but chance implies luck is involved, and it truly is.  The Celtics haven’t quite had the luck coincide with their quality yet, but that lack of luck says nothing about the pessimists nightly complaints, even in wins.  It’s really easy to say a given team isn’t going to win a title, because all teams have flaws, but it doesn’t mean your analysis is rational if you only talk about those flaws (especially when some of those “flaws” are actually trade-offs for positive attributes of the team), and ignore the many more virtues that exist.

I get your logic, and on one hand you make a valid point, but by that same line of reasoning a person could argue that since each season results in every team but one falling short of its ultimate goal, we really have no room to complain about anything, because "disappointment" is, in most cases, the expected (or favored) outcome.

I get that you and others don't like the complaints after every loss, but are there not things to complain about after any loss? It's rarely, if ever, the case that a team plays fantastically well and loses, so if there's a loss, there are likely gonna be warts to talk about (though I grant you that some people could express their disappointment/criticism in a more-reasonable, less-emotional fashion).

The original point of my prior post, however, was that, in general terms, eternal optimists on this site (and on CB) usually aren't held to the same standard as eternal pessimists, which bugs me. If we need to chill after a couple losses, we need to chill after a nice little winning streak.

[mobilija]

Boy some of the reactions on here at 5-2. How did you people survive between 2013-2015 

unrealistic expectations make a 2 game skid worse. I mean we had a thread comparing this team favorably to the Durant Warriors.  When you think this team is one of the greatest teams ever, this is the type of reaction you might see when the team loses.

And frankly, it bugs me that the pessimists get such a bad rap but the optimists seem to get off scot-free. Why isn't all the talk about "73 wins" and "better than the Warriors" getting shot down?

Over the last 7 years the Celtics have won close to 2/3 of their games and have have the second-best record in the NBA, and the pessmisists still freak out after virtually every single regular season loss.  It’s exhausting.

Pessimists didn't think we could win the title with the flaws we had/have. Were they right?

Frankly, no, they weren’t.  97% of teams don’t win every year.  Most of those teams don’t have a chance.  The Celtics continued success shows they absolutely have had a real chance every year, but chance implies luck is involved, and it truly is.  The Celtics haven’t quite had the luck coincide with their quality yet, but that lack of luck says nothing about the pessimists nightly complaints, even in wins.  It’s really easy to say a given team isn’t going to win a title, because all teams have flaws, but it doesn’t mean your analysis is rational if you only talk about those flaws (especially when some of those “flaws” are actually trade-offs for positive attributes of the team), and ignore the many more virtues that exist.

I get your logic, and on one hand you make a valid point, but by that same line of reasoning a person could argue that since each season results in every team but one falling short of its ultimate goal, we really have no room to complain about anything, because "disappointment" is, in most cases, the expected (or favored) outcome.

I get that you and others don't like the complaints after every loss, but are there not things to complain about after any loss? It's rarely, if ever, the case that a team plays fantastically well and loses, so if there's a loss, there are likely gonna be warts to talk about (though I grant you that some people could express their disappointment/criticism in a more-reasonable, less-emotional fashion).

The original point of my prior post, however, was that, in general terms, eternal optimists on this site (and on CB) usually aren't held to the same standard as eternal pessimists, which bugs me. If we need to chill after a couple losses, we need to chill after a nice little winning streak.

Isn't that just human nature?

Positive messages are received happily and negative messages are received with consternation. The message itself breeds the response. Its an art to couch negative messages so that they are taken positively. And....ummm, a different kind of art....to have your positive messages taken negatively.

But yes, in general people tend to get to hyped one way or the other. That's why we pay attention tho, to have our emotions tugged at.

[ozgod]

All is well with the world again!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlzY6cWpoMQ

[Kernewek]

Boy some of the reactions on here at 5-2. How did you people survive between 2013-2015 

unrealistic expectations make a 2 game skid worse. I mean we had a thread comparing this team favorably to the Durant Warriors.  When you think this team is one of the greatest teams ever, this is the type of reaction you might see when the team loses.

And frankly, it bugs me that the pessimists get such a bad rap but the optimists seem to get off scot-free. Why isn't all the talk about "73 wins" and "better than the Warriors" getting shot down?

Over the last 7 years the Celtics have won close to 2/3 of their games and have have the second-best record in the NBA, and the pessmisists still freak out after virtually every single regular season loss.  It’s exhausting.

Pessimists didn't think we could win the title with the flaws we had/have. Were they right?

Frankly, no, they weren’t.  97% of teams don’t win every year.  Most of those teams don’t have a chance.  The Celtics continued success shows they absolutely have had a real chance every year, but chance implies luck is involved, and it truly is.  The Celtics haven’t quite had the luck coincide with their quality yet, but that lack of luck says nothing about the pessimists nightly complaints, even in wins.  It’s really easy to say a given team isn’t going to win a title, because all teams have flaws, but it doesn’t mean your analysis is rational if you only talk about those flaws (especially when some of those “flaws” are actually trade-offs for positive attributes of the team), and ignore the many more virtues that exist.

I get your logic, and on one hand you make a valid point, but by that same line of reasoning a person could argue that since each season results in every team but one falling short of its ultimate goal, we really have no room to complain about anything, because "disappointment" is, in most cases, the expected (or favored) outcome.

I get that you and others don't like the complaints after every loss, but are there not things to complain about after any loss? It's rarely, if ever, the case that a team plays fantastically well and loses, so if there's a loss, there are likely gonna be warts to talk about (though I grant you that some people could express their disappointment/criticism in a more-reasonable, less-emotional fashion).

The original point of my prior post, however, was that, in general terms, eternal optimists on this site (and on CB) usually aren't held to the same standard as eternal pessimists, which bugs me. If we need to chill after a couple losses, we need to chill after a nice little winning streak.

Coming out flat in a big, must-win game is something that's reasonable to complain about. Losing an early season game by 3 points after shooting 39% from the field? A contested five-point loss in overtime with one of your most important players not able to suit up for the game? Possibly the team is less deserving of a lamentatious tongue-lashing.

[ozgod]

Boy some of the reactions on here at 5-2. How did you people survive between 2013-2015 

unrealistic expectations make a 2 game skid worse. I mean we had a thread comparing this team favorably to the Durant Warriors.  When you think this team is one of the greatest teams ever, this is the type of reaction you might see when the team loses.

And frankly, it bugs me that the pessimists get such a bad rap but the optimists seem to get off scot-free. Why isn't all the talk about "73 wins" and "better than the Warriors" getting shot down?

Over the last 7 years the Celtics have won close to 2/3 of their games and have have the second-best record in the NBA, and the pessmisists still freak out after virtually every single regular season loss.  It’s exhausting.

Pessimists didn't think we could win the title with the flaws we had/have. Were they right?

Frankly, no, they weren’t.  97% of teams don’t win every year.  Most of those teams don’t have a chance.  The Celtics continued success shows they absolutely have had a real chance every year, but chance implies luck is involved, and it truly is.  The Celtics haven’t quite had the luck coincide with their quality yet, but that lack of luck says nothing about the pessimists nightly complaints, even in wins.  It’s really easy to say a given team isn’t going to win a title, because all teams have flaws, but it doesn’t mean your analysis is rational if you only talk about those flaws (especially when some of those “flaws” are actually trade-offs for positive attributes of the team), and ignore the many more virtues that exist.

I get your logic, and on one hand you make a valid point, but by that same line of reasoning a person could argue that since each season results in every team but one falling short of its ultimate goal, we really have no room to complain about anything, because "disappointment" is, in most cases, the expected (or favored) outcome.

I get that you and others don't like the complaints after every loss, but are there not things to complain about after any loss? It's rarely, if ever, the case that a team plays fantastically well and loses, so if there's a loss, there are likely gonna be warts to talk about (though I grant you that some people could express their disappointment/criticism in a more-reasonable, less-emotional fashion).

The original point of my prior post, however, was that, in general terms, eternal optimists on this site (and on CB) usually aren't held to the same standard as eternal pessimists, which bugs me. If we need to chill after a couple losses, we need to chill after a nice little winning streak.

Coming out flat in a big, must-win game is something that's reasonable to complain about. Losing an early season game by 3 points after shooting 39% from the field? A contested five-point loss in overtime with one of your most important players not able to suit up for the game? Possibly the team is less deserving of a lamentatious tongue-lashing.

The problem is that this team's offensive identity is inextricably tied to the 3s it makes, and the only metric fans generally notice is whether they go in or not. If it went in it was a good 3, if not it was a bad one. I'm sure the team internally has metrics that place a numerical value on every spot on the floor as well as how open the player was, whether it was a catch and shoot vs a pull up vs a stepback etc, and at the end of each game their analytics team just looks at all that data to work out the quality of the shot, as opposed to "did it go in or not". That's all the stuff they look at in film that would bore the average fan to tears. (Personally because I'm a nerd that way I would give my left testicle to have access to that type of data, but it costs too much for a normal person to subscribe to Second Spectrum to get it  )

If we're judging them on whether they went in or not, then anytime they don't go in we yell at the TV for them to take a 2, which might be a worse quality shot. But unfortunately we as fans can only react in the moment, and ultimately we only care if the shot goes in or not. So we flagellate them for missed 3s and games where they shoot sub-30% from 3.

And ultimately what matters for winning that individual game is whether they made the shots or not...but from the point of view of developing habits and seeing if they are making the right reads, the team would probably be focusing less on makes and misses and more on the quality of the shot taken.

[tazzmaniac]

Boy some of the reactions on here at 5-2. How did you people survive between 2013-2015 

unrealistic expectations make a 2 game skid worse. I mean we had a thread comparing this team favorably to the Durant Warriors.  When you think this team is one of the greatest teams ever, this is the type of reaction you might see when the team loses.

And frankly, it bugs me that the pessimists get such a bad rap but the optimists seem to get off scot-free. Why isn't all the talk about "73 wins" and "better than the Warriors" getting shot down?

Over the last 7 years the Celtics have won close to 2/3 of their games and have have the second-best record in the NBA, and the pessmisists still freak out after virtually every single regular season loss.  It’s exhausting.

Pessimists didn't think we could win the title with the flaws we had/have. Were they right?

Frankly, no, they weren’t.  97% of teams don’t win every year.  Most of those teams don’t have a chance.  The Celtics continued success shows they absolutely have had a real chance every year, but chance implies luck is involved, and it truly is.  The Celtics haven’t quite had the luck coincide with their quality yet, but that lack of luck says nothing about the pessimists nightly complaints, even in wins.  It’s really easy to say a given team isn’t going to win a title, because all teams have flaws, but it doesn’t mean your analysis is rational if you only talk about those flaws (especially when some of those “flaws” are actually trade-offs for positive attributes of the team), and ignore the many more virtues that exist.

I get your logic, and on one hand you make a valid point, but by that same line of reasoning a person could argue that since each season results in every team but one falling short of its ultimate goal, we really have no room to complain about anything, because "disappointment" is, in most cases, the expected (or favored) outcome.

I get that you and others don't like the complaints after every loss, but are there not things to complain about after any loss? It's rarely, if ever, the case that a team plays fantastically well and loses, so if there's a loss, there are likely gonna be warts to talk about (though I grant you that some people could express their disappointment/criticism in a more-reasonable, less-emotional fashion).

The original point of my prior post, however, was that, in general terms, eternal optimists on this site (and on CB) usually aren't held to the same standard as eternal pessimists, which bugs me. If we need to chill after a couple losses, we need to chill after a nice little winning streak.

Coming out flat in a big, must-win game is something that's reasonable to complain about. Losing an early season game by 3 points after shooting 39% from the field? A contested five-point loss in overtime with one of your most important players not able to suit up for the game? Possibly the team is less deserving of a lamentatious tongue-lashing.

The problem is that this team's offensive identity is inextricably tied to the 3s it makes, and the only metric fans generally notice is whether they go in or not. If it went in it was a good 3, if not it was a bad one. I'm sure the team internally has metrics that place a numerical value on every spot on the floor as well as how open the player was, whether it was a catch and shoot vs a pull up vs a stepback etc, and at the end of each game their analytics team just looks at all that data to work out the quality of the shot, as opposed to "did it go in or not". That's all the stuff they look at in film that would bore the average fan to tears. (Personally because I'm a nerd that way I would give my left testicle to have access to that type of data, but it costs too much for a normal person to subscribe to Second Spectrum to get it  )

If we're judging them on whether they went in or not, then anytime they don't go in we yell at the TV for them to take a 2, which might be a worse quality shot. But unfortunately we as fans can only react in the moment, and ultimately we only care if the shot goes in or not. So we flagellate them for missed 3s and games where they shoot sub-30% from 3.

And ultimately what matters for winning that individual game is whether they made the shots or not...but from the point of view of developing habits and seeing if they are making the right reads, the team would probably be focusing less on makes and misses and more on the quality of the shot taken.

Win or lose I don't think taking 50+ 3-pt shots in a game is winning basketball.