Author Topic: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17  (Read 43211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #540 on: November 07, 2017, 01:08:37 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Roy and every one else that had questions about the trade, appreciated the heck out of IT, and are going to wait for Kyrie to prove himself in the same manner as he did, don't deserve to be attacked.  His points have always been valid, and despite some solid quarters (and tonight), Kyrie does still have a long way to go to warrant that trade.  So let's play nice.  It's a big sandbox.

Where you saying the same thing after IT's first season here, when people said it was only one season, he is just a sixth Man?

I was. I doubted him all the way, until the first quarter of last year. I was wrong. I am not going to spend this season waiting to believe my eyes with Kyrie.

Not at all.  Loved IT from the jump and wanted to see him start ASAP.  I can't remember exact comments, but I'm sure my posts will definitely reflect that. 

Ogaju: I love me some Tatum.

So you loved IT from the jump, yet Kyrie is playing much better ball than IT did (even to start his first full season), yet you doubt Kyrie?

I get the whole "well we lost the trade angle" (even if I think getting the best player is winning the trade in the NBA, and disagree), but I seriously don't get people arguing IT is a better player.

He isn't.

Not one GM in this league would trade Kyrie for IT straight up.

Yet some here seem to think that is in question.

It isn't.

Kyrie is simply a better player than IT, without question.

I agree that there isn't a single GM that would trade Kyrie for IT straight up.  As I GM, I wouldn't fathom it, either.  But Kyrie's not the unanimously better player yet.  Can he be? Sure.  Is he already? It's possible, but he hasn't proven it yet imo.

I respect your right to your opinion, but lol.

That opinion goin' to look really silly real quick.

It is clear Kyrie is just a step above.

Well, "just a step" and being made to "look silly" don't really add up, brohammer.

But I legitimately just gave Kyrie the benefit of the doubt in every way.  They were in two completely different circumstances -- IT carried a team, Kyrie took control in spots + LeBron + Cavs.  In reverse roles, I think they would've probably been similarly successfully. 

I don't think either side can end up losing this "Who is better?" debate, honestly.  Kyrie has way more firepower than IT ever did -- with (begrudging) credit to Ainge, Brown and Tatum have been ridiculously good.  But, it was an overpay; BKN could be just as good; their prior roles can't be reversed at this stage.

I don't agree. Much like with Davis, when a transcendent talent becomes available you get it done.

I think he's great, but not transcendent (same with IT).  Big Mo broke this down in another thread recently.  The last 6'2" transcendent talent, best player on a championship team, was...?

You can disagree all you want.  I'm still going to give you a TP.

Lol this is a joke, right?

Steph is 6' 3", same height as Irving.

I really, really hope you are just playing something.

That was just two years ago, lol...come on bruh.

Nailed it, TP.  Steph Curry - literally the greatest shooter of all time.  On the greatest team of all-time (until last year); without Draymond, an injured Curry, and a league that benefited a LOT from the Cavs winning.

Lol I am out, but you sure have a bone to pick.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. Kyrie is transcendent, and this will be proven.

You thought IT was nice under Brad? Well, wait until you see how he cooks with Kyrie.

Lol like dealing with the "IT is a 6th man" crowd all over again.

By my definition of the word, "transcendent" means we will make the Finals and come close to winning a championship this year.  That's what a transcendent player does, but you must believe otherwise.  So, unless that happens... you're up craps creek with that stance, imo.

No idea why you keep bringing up the IT + 6th man thing.  Completely irrelevant.  I was probably more pro-IT than you were at the time.   
So by your definition Kevin Durant isnt transcendent?

Lebron James wasnt until 2011 at age 26?

Michael Jordan didnt even hit that status till 27.

Shaq didnt get there till he was 27 either!

And you expect Kyrie's career to be as successful as theirs?  Pretty wild.  And he is in literally the perfect situation to make that happen for the peak of his career, if he chooses.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #541 on: November 07, 2017, 01:24:52 AM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Tommy Points: 1031
Roy and every one else that had questions about the trade, appreciated the heck out of IT, and are going to wait for Kyrie to prove himself in the same manner as he did, don't deserve to be attacked.  His points have always been valid, and despite some solid quarters (and tonight), Kyrie does still have a long way to go to warrant that trade.  So let's play nice.  It's a big sandbox.

Where you saying the same thing after IT's first season here, when people said it was only one season, he is just a sixth Man?

I was. I doubted him all the way, until the first quarter of last year. I was wrong. I am not going to spend this season waiting to believe my eyes with Kyrie.

Not at all.  Loved IT from the jump and wanted to see him start ASAP.  I can't remember exact comments, but I'm sure my posts will definitely reflect that. 

Ogaju: I love me some Tatum.

So you loved IT from the jump, yet Kyrie is playing much better ball than IT did (even to start his first full season), yet you doubt Kyrie?

I get the whole "well we lost the trade angle" (even if I think getting the best player is winning the trade in the NBA, and disagree), but I seriously don't get people arguing IT is a better player.

He isn't.

Not one GM in this league would trade Kyrie for IT straight up.

Yet some here seem to think that is in question.

It isn't.

Kyrie is simply a better player than IT, without question.

I agree that there isn't a single GM that would trade Kyrie for IT straight up.  As I GM, I wouldn't fathom it, either.  But Kyrie's not the unanimously better player yet.  Can he be? Sure.  Is he already? It's possible, but he hasn't proven it yet imo.

I respect your right to your opinion, but lol.

That opinion goin' to look really silly real quick.

It is clear Kyrie is just a step above.

Well, "just a step" and being made to "look silly" don't really add up, brohammer.

But I legitimately just gave Kyrie the benefit of the doubt in every way.  They were in two completely different circumstances -- IT carried a team, Kyrie took control in spots + LeBron + Cavs.  In reverse roles, I think they would've probably been similarly successfully. 

I don't think either side can end up losing this "Who is better?" debate, honestly.  Kyrie has way more firepower than IT ever did -- with (begrudging) credit to Ainge, Brown and Tatum have been ridiculously good.  But, it was an overpay; BKN could be just as good; their prior roles can't be reversed at this stage.

I don't agree. Much like with Davis, when a transcendent talent becomes available you get it done.

I think he's great, but not transcendent (same with IT).  Big Mo broke this down in another thread recently.  The last 6'2" transcendent talent, best player on a championship team, was...?

You can disagree all you want.  I'm still going to give you a TP.

Lol this is a joke, right?

Steph is 6' 3", same height as Irving.

I really, really hope you are just playing something.

That was just two years ago, lol...come on bruh.

Nailed it, TP.  Steph Curry - literally the greatest shooter of all time.  On the greatest team of all-time (until last year); without Draymond, an injured Curry, and a league that benefited a LOT from the Cavs winning.

Lol I am out, but you sure have a bone to pick.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. Kyrie is transcendent, and this will be proven.

You thought IT was nice under Brad? Well, wait until you see how he cooks with Kyrie.

Lol like dealing with the "IT is a 6th man" crowd all over again.

By my definition of the word, "transcendent" means we will make the Finals and come close to winning a championship this year.  That's what a transcendent player does, but you must believe otherwise.  So, unless that happens... you're up craps creek with that stance, imo.

No idea why you keep bringing up the IT + 6th man thing.  Completely irrelevant.  I was probably more pro-IT than you were at the time.   
So by your definition Kevin Durant isnt transcendent?

Lebron James wasnt until 2011 at age 26?

Michael Jordan didnt even hit that status till 27.

Shaq didnt get there till he was 27 either!

It’s an interesting debate, actually.

Is Carmelo transcendant? How about Harden? CP3?

Something separates those players with the LeBrons, Kobes, Jordans etc.

You can be a hall-of-famer and not be a transcendant player, IMO.

I also think you can be a transcendant talent but not a transcendant player (I’m looking at you, Anthony Davis!).
CELTICS 2024

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #542 on: November 07, 2017, 01:29:19 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8593
  • Tommy Points: 1389
Roy and every one else that had questions about the trade, appreciated the heck out of IT, and are going to wait for Kyrie to prove himself in the same manner as he did, don't deserve to be attacked.  His points have always been valid, and despite some solid quarters (and tonight), Kyrie does still have a long way to go to warrant that trade.  So let's play nice.  It's a big sandbox.

Where you saying the same thing after IT's first season here, when people said it was only one season, he is just a sixth Man?

I was. I doubted him all the way, until the first quarter of last year. I was wrong. I am not going to spend this season waiting to believe my eyes with Kyrie.

Not at all.  Loved IT from the jump and wanted to see him start ASAP.  I can't remember exact comments, but I'm sure my posts will definitely reflect that. 

Ogaju: I love me some Tatum.

So you loved IT from the jump, yet Kyrie is playing much better ball than IT did (even to start his first full season), yet you doubt Kyrie?

I get the whole "well we lost the trade angle" (even if I think getting the best player is winning the trade in the NBA, and disagree), but I seriously don't get people arguing IT is a better player.

He isn't.

Not one GM in this league would trade Kyrie for IT straight up.

Yet some here seem to think that is in question.

It isn't.

Kyrie is simply a better player than IT, without question.

I agree that there isn't a single GM that would trade Kyrie for IT straight up.  As I GM, I wouldn't fathom it, either.  But Kyrie's not the unanimously better player yet.  Can he be? Sure.  Is he already? It's possible, but he hasn't proven it yet imo.

I respect your right to your opinion, but lol.

That opinion goin' to look really silly real quick.

It is clear Kyrie is just a step above.

Well, "just a step" and being made to "look silly" don't really add up, brohammer.

But I legitimately just gave Kyrie the benefit of the doubt in every way.  They were in two completely different circumstances -- IT carried a team, Kyrie took control in spots + LeBron + Cavs.  In reverse roles, I think they would've probably been similarly successfully. 

I don't think either side can end up losing this "Who is better?" debate, honestly.  Kyrie has way more firepower than IT ever did -- with (begrudging) credit to Ainge, Brown and Tatum have been ridiculously good.  But, it was an overpay; BKN could be just as good; their prior roles can't be reversed at this stage.

I don't agree. Much like with Davis, when a transcendent talent becomes available you get it done.

I think he's great, but not transcendent (same with IT).  Big Mo broke this down in another thread recently.  The last 6'2" transcendent talent, best player on a championship team, was...?

You can disagree all you want.  I'm still going to give you a TP.

Lol this is a joke, right?

Steph is 6' 3", same height as Irving.

I really, really hope you are just playing something.

That was just two years ago, lol...come on bruh.

Nailed it, TP.  Steph Curry - literally the greatest shooter of all time.  On the greatest team of all-time (until last year); without Draymond, an injured Curry, and a league that benefited a LOT from the Cavs winning.

Lol I am out, but you sure have a bone to pick.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. Kyrie is transcendent, and this will be proven.

You thought IT was nice under Brad? Well, wait until you see how he cooks with Kyrie.

Lol like dealing with the "IT is a 6th man" crowd all over again.

By my definition of the word, "transcendent" means we will make the Finals and come close to winning a championship this year.  That's what a transcendent player does, but you must believe otherwise.  So, unless that happens... you're up craps creek with that stance, imo.

No idea why you keep bringing up the IT + 6th man thing.  Completely irrelevant.  I was probably more pro-IT than you were at the time.   
So by your definition Kevin Durant isnt transcendent?

Lebron James wasnt until 2011 at age 26?

Michael Jordan didnt even hit that status till 27.

Shaq didnt get there till he was 27 either!

It’s an interesting debate, actually.

Is Carmelo transcendant? How about Harden? CP3?

Something separates those players with the LeBrons, Kobes, Jordans etc.

You can be a hall-of-famer and not be a transcendant player, IMO.

I also think you can be a transcendant talent but not a transcendant player (I’m looking at you, Anthony Davis!).

No, no, not quite.  And I agree, it's a subjective definition.  I hope Davis becomes one (in Celtic green), but also because he's my only hope in fantasy ball.
The Tarstradamus Group, LLC

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #543 on: November 07, 2017, 01:32:05 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8595
  • Tommy Points: 842
Roy and every one else that had questions about the trade, appreciated the heck out of IT, and are going to wait for Kyrie to prove himself in the same manner as he did, don't deserve to be attacked.  His points have always been valid, and despite some solid quarters (and tonight), Kyrie does still have a long way to go to warrant that trade.  So let's play nice.  It's a big sandbox.

Where you saying the same thing after IT's first season here, when people said it was only one season, he is just a sixth Man?

I was. I doubted him all the way, until the first quarter of last year. I was wrong. I am not going to spend this season waiting to believe my eyes with Kyrie.

Not at all.  Loved IT from the jump and wanted to see him start ASAP.  I can't remember exact comments, but I'm sure my posts will definitely reflect that. 

Ogaju: I love me some Tatum.

So you loved IT from the jump, yet Kyrie is playing much better ball than IT did (even to start his first full season), yet you doubt Kyrie?

I get the whole "well we lost the trade angle" (even if I think getting the best player is winning the trade in the NBA, and disagree), but I seriously don't get people arguing IT is a better player.

He isn't.

Not one GM in this league would trade Kyrie for IT straight up.

Yet some here seem to think that is in question.

It isn't.

Kyrie is simply a better player than IT, without question.

I agree that there isn't a single GM that would trade Kyrie for IT straight up.  As I GM, I wouldn't fathom it, either.  But Kyrie's not the unanimously better player yet.  Can he be? Sure.  Is he already? It's possible, but he hasn't proven it yet imo.

I respect your right to your opinion, but lol.

That opinion goin' to look really silly real quick.

It is clear Kyrie is just a step above.

Well, "just a step" and being made to "look silly" don't really add up, brohammer.

But I legitimately just gave Kyrie the benefit of the doubt in every way.  They were in two completely different circumstances -- IT carried a team, Kyrie took control in spots + LeBron + Cavs.  In reverse roles, I think they would've probably been similarly successfully. 

I don't think either side can end up losing this "Who is better?" debate, honestly.  Kyrie has way more firepower than IT ever did -- with (begrudging) credit to Ainge, Brown and Tatum have been ridiculously good.  But, it was an overpay; BKN could be just as good; their prior roles can't be reversed at this stage.

I don't agree. Much like with Davis, when a transcendent talent becomes available you get it done.

I think he's great, but not transcendent (same with IT).  Big Mo broke this down in another thread recently.  The last 6'2" transcendent talent, best player on a championship team, was...?

You can disagree all you want.  I'm still going to give you a TP.

Lol this is a joke, right?

Steph is 6' 3", same height as Irving.

I really, really hope you are just playing something.

That was just two years ago, lol...come on bruh.

Nailed it, TP.  Steph Curry - literally the greatest shooter of all time.  On the greatest team of all-time (until last year); without Draymond, an injured Curry, and a league that benefited a LOT from the Cavs winning.

Lol I am out, but you sure have a bone to pick.

Sit back and enjoy the ride. Kyrie is transcendent, and this will be proven.

You thought IT was nice under Brad? Well, wait until you see how he cooks with Kyrie.

Lol like dealing with the "IT is a 6th man" crowd all over again.

By my definition of the word, "transcendent" means we will make the Finals and come close to winning a championship this year.  That's what a transcendent player does, but you must believe otherwise.  So, unless that happens... you're up craps creek with that stance, imo.

No idea why you keep bringing up the IT + 6th man thing.  Completely irrelevant.  I was probably more pro-IT than you were at the time.   
So by your definition Kevin Durant isnt transcendent?

Lebron James wasnt until 2011 at age 26?

Michael Jordan didnt even hit that status till 27.

Shaq didnt get there till he was 27 either!

And you expect Kyrie's career to be as successful as theirs?  Pretty wild.  And he is in literally the perfect situation to make that happen for the peak of his career, if he chooses.
Nope. Never implied that either.

Just think its pretty wild that you looked at a 25 year old Lebron James and said "nope. not transcendent."

Edit: Lebron was transcendant at 26. He wasnt at 25.

Its Michael Jordan who wasnt transcendant at 25 despite putting up 34/7/6 and leading the league in steals
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #544 on: November 07, 2017, 01:43:43 AM »

Offline SparzWizard

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16068
  • Tommy Points: 990
Al horford 15/10/9 lol

Puts up almost triple double and no one notices

People too busy comparing IT4 to Kyrie and whatnot  ::) ::) ::)


#JTJB (Just Trade Jaylen Brown)
#JFJM (Just Fire Joe Mazzulla)

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #545 on: November 07, 2017, 05:27:03 AM »

Offline jdz101

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Tommy Points: 404
Good win but disappointed in lack of defensive intensity. Felt Once Briwn got 2nd early foul his defense really slipped, probably trying to avoid another early foul.

Also some of the guys refuse to swing the ball around much, and we get stuck too much in 2 man ball. Like Baynes but he is often guilty of this shortcoming.

Your disappointed about the defensive intensity from an away game which gives us our 9th straight win, that came from our 3rd game in 4 nights? Hard man to please.

I knew that part of our game wasnt going to be up to the usual standard because it is very hard to maintain that when you're tired. I was very proud of the team for getting that win though.


how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck was chris bosh?

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #546 on: November 07, 2017, 05:36:16 AM »

Offline jdz101

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3171
  • Tommy Points: 404
I find it humorous when posters can see our defensive identity there that was AWOL for the past year, see our far superior net rating, see us easily dispose of inferior basketball teams, and yet still faun after what we had in previous years. This team has improved. With Hayward available this team would have drastically improved.

The one and only thing you could be upset about is trading away that Brooklyn pick, which is currently, what? Pick 11 or 12?

I'll be one that says I wasn't a huge fan of that trade at the time, but I stand converted after a pretty decent sample of watching this team play and how deep they are. The brooklyn pick upset me most. Again, brooklyn aren't playing like a top 4 pick in the draft team right now.


how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck was chris bosh?

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #547 on: November 07, 2017, 05:59:03 AM »

Offline makaveli

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3138
  • Tommy Points: 320
  • The Truth
this is Al Horford we had hoped for. Danny did a brilliant job assembling the roster, only to be out done by Brad in making it all gel at this high level.
This team can go for it all this year, and years to come:
- defense - check
- superstar - check
- all star - check
- coaching - check
- youth - double check
what doesn't kill you makes you stronger

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #548 on: November 07, 2017, 07:28:41 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I find it humorous when posters can see our defensive identity there that was AWOL for the past year, see our far superior net rating, see us easily dispose of inferior basketball teams, and yet still faun after what we had in previous years. This team has improved. With Hayward available this team would have drastically improved.

The one and only thing you could be upset about is trading away that Brooklyn pick, which is currently, what? Pick 11 or 12?

I'll be one that says I wasn't a huge fan of that trade at the time, but I stand converted after a pretty decent sample of watching this team play and how deep they are. The brooklyn pick upset me most. Again, brooklyn aren't playing like a top 4 pick in the draft team right now.
Hard to disagree with this

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #549 on: November 07, 2017, 08:19:29 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58559
  • Tommy Points: -25635
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I find it humorous when posters can see our defensive identity there that was AWOL for the past year, see our far superior net rating, see us easily dispose of inferior basketball teams, and yet still faun after what we had in previous years. This team has improved. With Hayward available this team would have drastically improved.

The one and only thing you could be upset about is trading away that Brooklyn pick, which is currently, what? Pick 11 or 12?

I'll be one that says I wasn't a huge fan of that trade at the time, but I stand converted after a pretty decent sample of watching this team play and how deep they are. The brooklyn pick upset me most. Again, brooklyn aren't playing like a top 4 pick in the draft team right now.
Hard to disagree with this

Is anyone arguing that the team isn’t better defensively?

That doesn’t mean the passing or offense are better, though, either collectively or individually.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #550 on: November 07, 2017, 08:26:49 AM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
I find it humorous when posters can see our defensive identity there that was AWOL for the past year, see our far superior net rating, see us easily dispose of inferior basketball teams, and yet still faun after what we had in previous years. This team has improved. With Hayward available this team would have drastically improved.

The one and only thing you could be upset about is trading away that Brooklyn pick, which is currently, what? Pick 11 or 12?

I'll be one that says I wasn't a huge fan of that trade at the time, but I stand converted after a pretty decent sample of watching this team play and how deep they are. The brooklyn pick upset me most. Again, brooklyn aren't playing like a top 4 pick in the draft team right now.
Hard to disagree with this

Is anyone arguing that the team isn’t better defensively?

That doesn’t mean the passing or offense are better, though, either collectively or individually.
Ok Roy. So which team is better? This year's or last? And what's the big difference?

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #551 on: November 07, 2017, 08:30:07 AM »

Offline cltc5

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7054
  • Tommy Points: 445
I find it humorous when posters can see our defensive identity there that was AWOL for the past year, see our far superior net rating, see us easily dispose of inferior basketball teams, and yet still faun after what we had in previous years. This team has improved. With Hayward available this team would have drastically improved.

The one and only thing you could be upset about is trading away that Brooklyn pick, which is currently, what? Pick 11 or 12?

I'll be one that says I wasn't a huge fan of that trade at the time, but I stand converted after a pretty decent sample of watching this team play and how deep they are. The brooklyn pick upset me most. Again, brooklyn aren't playing like a top 4 pick in the draft team right now.

Agreed.  Wasn't keen on the Brooklyn pick but was more than happy to trade IT AND CROWDER.  Both would have stunted our youth movement and one, IT, would have played hero ball all year only to lose in the playoffs while each year threatening injury and continuing aging.  I liked rondo, but I saw the writing on the wall and was happy to have him moved.  What's best for the Celtics.

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #552 on: November 07, 2017, 08:42:24 AM »

Offline incoherent

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1855
  • Tommy Points: 278
  • 7 + 11 = 18
I find it humorous when posters can see our defensive identity there that was AWOL for the past year, see our far superior net rating, see us easily dispose of inferior basketball teams, and yet still faun after what we had in previous years. This team has improved. With Hayward available this team would have drastically improved.

The one and only thing you could be upset about is trading away that Brooklyn pick, which is currently, what? Pick 11 or 12?

I'll be one that says I wasn't a huge fan of that trade at the time, but I stand converted after a pretty decent sample of watching this team play and how deep they are. The brooklyn pick upset me most. Again, brooklyn aren't playing like a top 4 pick in the draft team right now.
Hard to disagree with this

Is anyone arguing that the team isn’t better defensively?

That doesn’t mean the passing or offense are better, though, either collectively or individually.

And it's not expected to be.  Jae/Bradley/IT had 2+ years of experience and continuity together. Also last years team had a much older starting lineup with more veterans and experience.

Theres no chance our offense will click like it did last year this early in the season when we are starting a rookie and a sophomore.




Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #553 on: November 07, 2017, 09:33:14 AM »

Offline jpotter33

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 47948
  • Tommy Points: 2906
Quote
Any empirical stats to back up your assists claims, or is that just pure conjecture based on the eye test?

Lol. When have I ever gone by “pure conjecture”?

The stats are on NBA.com. Unlike some, I tend not to make claims based upon the “eye test”. It’s not reliable, as your above conjecture about Kyrie’s hockey assists and potential assists shows.

Settle down, slick. I had never heard those terms before, so I was clarifying whether that claim was based on stats or just an offhand comment.

But looking into the context of those stats, once again they're hardly as compelling as you're presenting them, and they actually show that Kyrie is just as an effective passer (if not more) in his short Celtics stint than IT was last year.

For example, your claim that IT had "four times as many secondary assists" in reality equates to him averaging 1.7 per game compared to Kyrie's .5 per game. Nice small sample size framing of those numbers!  ;)

And then looking at the actual number of passes each player made/received, IT averaged 55.7 passes made per game compared to Kyrie's 49.5, and IT received 76.8 passes per game compared to Kyrie's 61.7, which is certainly consistent with the higher usage, touches, and passes that IT made per game.

Thus, since quantity =/= quality, this makes Kyrie a more effective passer due to putting up just slightly worse assist numbers in a significantly lesser quantity of passes. This is proven by Kyrie's Assist to Pass % (11.6) being a full point higher than IT's last year (10.6)! Thus, no, Kyrie has been just as effective, if not even slightly better, of a passer than IT last year when usage, touches, and total passes (i.e. the context) are taken into consideration.

https://stats.nba.com/players/passing/?Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=SECONDARY_AST&dir=1

https://stats.nba.com/players/passing/?sort=SECONDARY_AST&dir=1
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 10:05:41 AM by jpotter33 »

Re: Celtics (8-2) at Hawks (2-8) Game #11 11/6/17
« Reply #554 on: November 07, 2017, 10:46:31 AM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
I find it humorous when posters can see our defensive identity there that was AWOL for the past year, see our far superior net rating, see us easily dispose of inferior basketball teams, and yet still faun after what we had in previous years. This team has improved. With Hayward available this team would have drastically improved.

The one and only thing you could be upset about is trading away that Brooklyn pick, which is currently, what? Pick 11 or 12?

I'll be one that says I wasn't a huge fan of that trade at the time, but I stand converted after a pretty decent sample of watching this team play and how deep they are. The brooklyn pick upset me most. Again, brooklyn aren't playing like a top 4 pick in the draft team right now.
Hard to disagree with this

Is anyone arguing that the team isn’t better defensively?

That doesn’t mean the passing or offense are better, though, either collectively or individually.

It also doesn’t mean the offense is worse.  Over the 9 game winning streak, our offensive rating is 107.6, which is not significantly different from last year’s 108.6 rating.  Our 4th quarter rating this year is 115.8, better than last year’s 114.4 (which was 3rd in the league).

The season is still young, so a) these numbers could change significantly over the year, and b) can really be impacted by a single game due to the weight of any given game with so few having been played.  (Even cutting out the first two games of the year by focusing on the winning streak only raised our offensive rating by 2.2 points.  Due to the unique circumstances around these games (the gruesome Hayward injury that clearly shook the team in game 1, and having to turn around so quickly without any time to adjust for game 2, I feel they are fairly excluded for now given it’s near 20% of the season weight.)

Anyway, I think people are actually underselling the quality of the offense so far, because the first two games have so much weight on the sample.  It’s a good offensive team.  Maybe not great, but good, and as the sample size increases, I wouldn’t be remotely surprised to find that we have a top 8-10 offense, as we did last year.