Raptors (2-11) at Celtics (10-3) Game #14 11/16/24

[SparzWizard]

Glad to see Tatum redeem himself. Pretty ironic he botches that play and takes an awful shot and drains it, only after getting a wide open 18-footer and missed the rim completely.

Don?t mind the exorbitant amount of threes. As long as they are good looks. Wide-open threes for about 8 of our guys is a great shot. Better than a dunk? No? but you take that shot every time it?s given.

The (slight) concern is paint protection. We are giving up too many points in the paint and second chances. KP should help with that.

But let?s face it; it?s hard to get up for every game while the opponent wants to knock us off at all costs.

The Cavs game will be interesting because this is their first REAL statement game (opening night was fine to show the Knicks where they really stand, and the Warriors game was personal for one player).

They've had a few statement games already. I still count the Knicks because they were loaded and hyped on opening night, and will still pose a threat later on. Warriors game was also a test and they were only a 1-loss team at the time when we faced them. Can't discount the Pacers whom they beat us earlier this season, a team we will see in the playoffs.

[tenn_smoothie]

Simply can?t stand the extreme focus on threes this year.

1000% agree - it has gone way too far.

Agree - way too many threes.  They?re so good that they?re 11-3 despite the over reliance on the deep ball.

like it or not, this reliance on 3s is resulting a lot of wins and at least one championship so far.

Not to this extreme - we are attempting 50+ 3's regularly, we took 61 tonight. That is not good basketball.
Too many of those attempts are not taken within the rhythm of offensive movement. They are forced off the dribble and contested.

[Vermont Green]

Simply can?t stand the extreme focus on threes this year.

1000% agree - it has gone way too far.

Celts put up 61 three's tonite @ 34% - ridiculous.

Yeah, they will never win a championship shooting a lot of 3?s. That?s for sure.

It's interesting looking at the shot margins:

Code: [Select]

Celtics Raptors
Total FG Attempted 99 98
Total FG Made 44 50
% Made 44.4% 51.0%

2pt FG Attempted 38 75
2pt FG Made 23 41
% Made 60.5% 54.7%

3pt FG Attempted 61 23
3pt FG Made 21 9
% Made 34.4% 39.1%

2pt FG attempts as % of total 38.4% 76.5%
3pt FG attempts as % of total 61.6% 23.5%

2pt FG made as % of total made 52.3% 82%
3pt FG made as % of total made 47.7% 18%

Total pts from 2s 46 82
Total pts from 3s 63 27

FT attempted 17 14
FT made 19 21
% made 89.5% 66.7%
So if you were a stat nerd, what would you parse out of this? Each team took about the same number of shots (99 v 98), but 2 in every 3 of our attempts was a 3, while for Toronto 3 in every 4 was a 2. So they took nearly 2x as many 2s as we did, and shot them at 55%. We took half as many 2s and shot slightly better, at 60%. So of our points total, 46 points was from 2s and theirs was 82.

In terms of threes, we took 3x as many as they did (61) and made about a third, so our total points from 3s was 63 points. They took 23 3s and made 9, a bit over a third (40%) for a points total from 3s of 27 points.

So, of the points we scored from field goals, 60% came from beyond the arc while 80% of theirs came from within the arc. Because we took higher value shots, even though we missed more of them, it turned out to be a wash in terms of points (109 vs 109). They had to make 6 more shots than we did to get the same number of points.

Where we won the game really, was in the fact that we made 17 or 19 from the line, they made 14 of 21. That's our 3 point margin right there.

I think for folks who grew up in a time when people weren't just raining what we feel are lower percentage shots from behind the arc all the time, it feels like they're just "chucking" - because as the inimiatable @Kernewek once said, in a game thread, we have two states - happy and sad. When the ball goes thru the rim we are happy. When it doesn't we are sad. And if they are taking more 3s they will miss more shots, so we probably had more moments of sadness in the game than the Raptors fans, because they watched their team make 6 more shots than we did. And when we do make a 3, we don't become 33% more happy because the shot was worth more, because happiness and sadness is a binary thing. And it's quickly forgotten when the next shot is missed 

But if I had to hazard a guess, all their stats nerds know this and this is why they're ok with 60 3s attempts because as long as they make enough of them, eventually the other team will have to make a lot more shots than we do to just break even. The issue becomes when we don't make enough of them, and that's when we go beyond sad, to mad 

There is another way to look at this.  At 60.5% 2F%, that is 1.21 pts/2FA.  At 34.45 3P%, that is only 1.03 pts/3PA.  So how is it better to have more 3PA when you are getting less points per attempt?  They would need to shoot over 40% from 3 to bring the pts/3PA to match what they are getting from each 2PA (at least for this game).  I am concerned.  I think they are taking this too far.  They are forgetting how to play for a 2-point shot.  They are making it easier for the other team to defend them.

On the season, they are 57.5% from 2 (1.15 pts/sPA) and 37.0% from 3 (1.11 pts/3PA).

[Vermont Green]

Interesting results from the big rotation.  Both Queta and Horford had good box scores, but Queta was -5 and Horford was -7 overall.  When they were on the floor together, they were -8 in 23 minutes.  Kornet was +7 in 17 minutes.  In 11 min as the lone big, Kornet was +7.  In 5 min with Queta, he was +0 (there is some rounding in the minutes).  Queta (+3) and Horford (+1) were both better when on the floor as the lone big.

On the season, Horford and Queta are +12 when on the floor together (94 minutes).  But if you normalize to 100 possessions, Horford is +10.3 overall and Queta is +15.0 overall.  They are +6.3 per 100 poss when on the floor together.  They are both quite a bit better when not on the floor together.  I am not sure I understand why they have them out there together so much.  They can go small and play Pritchard and Hauser more, or even Walsh some.

I like 2 big line ups when Prozingis is one of the bigs, but I think you need someone with more offense than Queta to pair with Horford.  Horford has some offense but kind of 1 dimensional.  I guess we don't have a whole lot of options right now with Tillman essentially having disappeared.

[SparzWizard]

Jaylen's been throwing a lot of shades lately. His latest victim is the Toronto Raptors after Tatum saved the C's from 2OT.

I don't like it, as now teams are starting to put a bullseye on his back. And teams are already giving hell to Tatum. Don't need the extra ego attraction

[Phantom255x]

Poeltl is a great player, but yeah it just sums it up when he decides to have a career high against us where he looks like prime McHale or Shaq. Like what the hell. 16-19 shooting? Lord have mercy.

[radiohead]

Jaylen's been throwing a lot of shades lately. His latest victim is the Toronto Raptors after Tatum saved the C's from 2OT.

I don't like it, as now teams are starting to put a bullseye on his back. And teams are already giving hell to Tatum. Don't need the extra ego attraction

What did he say? In any case, i think all the teams are gonna give it their best shot when they face the Celtics (being defending champs). That?s why they say it?s very hard to repeat. Even KG said that in his show.

[Kernewek]

Jaylen's been throwing a lot of shades lately. His latest victim is the Toronto Raptors after Tatum saved the C's from 2OT.

I don't like it, as now teams are starting to put a bullseye on his back. And teams are already giving hell to Tatum. Don't need the extra ego attraction

What did he say? In any case, i think all the teams are gonna give it their best shot when they face the Celtics (being defending champs). That?s why they say it?s very hard to repeat. Even KG said that in his show.

Agreed.

[Surferdad]

Interesting results from the big rotation.  Both Queta and Horford had good box scores, but Queta was -5 and Horford was -7 overall.  When they were on the floor together, they were -8 in 23 minutes. Kornet was +7 in 17 minutes.  In 11 min as the lone big, Kornet was +7.  In 5 min with Queta, he was +0 (there is some rounding in the minutes).  Queta (+3) and Horford (+1) were both better when on the floor as the lone big.

On the season, Horford and Queta are +12 when on the floor together (94 minutes).  But if you normalize to 100 possessions, Horford is +10.3 overall and Queta is +15.0 overall.  They are +6.3 per 100 poss when on the floor together.  They are both quite a bit better when not on the floor together.  I am not sure I understand why they have them out there together so much.  They can go small and play Pritchard and Hauser more, or even Walsh some.

I like 2 big line ups when Prozingis is one of the bigs, but I think you need someone with more offense than Queta to pair with Horford.  Horford has some offense but kind of 1 dimensional.  I guess we don't have a whole lot of options right now with Tillman essentially having disappeared.

This is a great example of the weakness of +/- as a stat. It implies that Kornet did not hurt the team regardless of which lineup he was in. That contradicts the eye test in which I saw very few good things from Kornet. I was even raging in this game thread about his mistakes and the fact that opponents score at will against him despite his 7? size.

[Vermont Green]

Interesting results from the big rotation.  Both Queta and Horford had good box scores, but Queta was -5 and Horford was -7 overall.  When they were on the floor together, they were -8 in 23 minutes. Kornet was +7 in 17 minutes.  In 11 min as the lone big, Kornet was +7.  In 5 min with Queta, he was +0 (there is some rounding in the minutes).  Queta (+3) and Horford (+1) were both better when on the floor as the lone big.

On the season, Horford and Queta are +12 when on the floor together (94 minutes).  But if you normalize to 100 possessions, Horford is +10.3 overall and Queta is +15.0 overall.  They are +6.3 per 100 poss when on the floor together.  They are both quite a bit better when not on the floor together.  I am not sure I understand why they have them out there together so much.  They can go small and play Pritchard and Hauser more, or even Walsh some.

I like 2 big line ups when Prozingis is one of the bigs, but I think you need someone with more offense than Queta to pair with Horford.  Horford has some offense but kind of 1 dimensional.  I guess we don't have a whole lot of options right now with Tillman essentially having disappeared.

This is a great example of the weakness of +/- as a stat. It implies that Kornet did not hurt the team regardless of which lineup he was in. That contradicts the eye test in which I saw very few good things from Kornet. I was even raging in this game thread about his mistakes and the fact that opponents score at will against him despite his 7? size.

I agree, the +/- in a small sample size is not the end all.  I go a lot by the eye test also.  But +/- is real and it is worth considering to add context to your eye test.  My main point is that my eye test tells me that Horford and Queta are not great together.  That they are better split up.  Before I commit fully to my eye test conclusions, I like to check the numbers for context.  The context here was that based on +/-, Horford and Queta were not good together, in this specific small sample size.

As to Kornet, my eye test says that he can play well when the lone big.  He can't shoot 3s, but he does pick well, passes well, and can roll and finish when that is there.  He is +38 in 154 minutes as the lone big.  He is +12 in 37 minutes on the floor with Horford, which is better based on this metric than Horford + Queta (+12 / 94 min).  Kornet and Queta have no minutes together.  Again, I understand that +/- in any sample size can get distorted, and often does, but I think it is useful for context.

I understand that the Celtics are struggling to find combinations with Porzingis out and Tillman playing so poorly.  They don't have a lot of options.  But I don't think playing Queta and Horford together is the way to go.  I don't like how it looks on the court and I don't like how the +/- looks, especially last game.  I would rather see 1 big line ups based on who we have available right now.  That may mean more of Walsh, especially if another starter is out, which is not ideal, but what can you do.

[mobilija]

It sounds like a Horford problem. He can?t be a power forward. He should strictly be used as center. What does the data suggest based on Horford playing alongside Porzingis last year?

So, we have a surplus of capable backup centers but no one to be back up PF. We need a Tatum light, a Kuzma or Nance Jr.

[Vermont Green]

It sounds like a Horford problem. He can't be a power forward. He should strictly be used as center. What does the data suggest based on Horford playing alongside Porzingis last year?

So, we have a surplus of capable backup centers but no one to be back up PF. We need a Tatum light, a Kuzma or Nance Jr.

Mixed, I don't think it is as simple as Horford as a PF or as a C.  The following are normalized to per 100 possessions for 2023/24 regular season:

with Queta         +20.0  (PF?)
with Tillman       +14.3   (C?)
with Porzingis    +14.2    (PF?)
with Tatum        +12.6    (C?)
with Kornet         +6.1    (PF?)

Hard to draw any conclusions.  These are based on 2-man line ups so there is overlap.  It would include all the line ups that have Horford and Queta (for example).  Tatum is also likely included in many of the minutes for all of them.

I don't disagree that a back up swing type (Hybrid wing/PF) would be a nice fit.  Horford is versatile enough to play either position, it depends more who the other big is.  They (Horford + Queta) produced fine last season in terms of +/- (it was only 61 minutes total in 2023/24), but I don't see it as the best pairing right now.

This also gets skewed due to talent.  It is hard to compare Horford at C with Tatum as the PF to Horford at PF with Queta at C or Horford at C with Tillman at PF.  And when it is Horford + Porzingis, who is the C?  In the end, Horford off the bench offers so much versatility that the team is just way better.  He can play PF or C and in a 1 big or 2 big line up.  He makes our bench so much better when he is the first big off the bench and not Tillman or Kornet or even Queta.

[mobilija]

It sounds like a Horford problem. He can't be a power forward. He should strictly be used as center. What does the data suggest based on Horford playing alongside Porzingis last year?

So, we have a surplus of capable backup centers but no one to be back up PF. We need a Tatum light, a Kuzma or Nance Jr.

Mixed, I don't think it is as simple as Horford as a PF or as a C.  The following are normalized to per 100 possessions for 2023/24 regular season:

with Queta         +20.0  (PF?)
with Tillman       +14.3   (C?)
with Porzingis    +14.2    (PF?)
with Tatum        +12.6    (C?)
with Kornet         +6.1    (PF?)

Hard to draw any conclusions.  These are based on 2-man line ups so there is overlap.  It would include all the line ups that have Horford and Queta (for example).  Tatum is also likely included in many of the minutes for all of them.

I don't disagree that a back up swing type (Hybrid wing/PF) would be a nice fit.  Horford is versatile enough to play either position, it depends more who the other big is.  They (Horford + Queta) produced fine last season in terms of +/- (it was only 61 minutes total in 2023/24), but I don't see it as the best pairing right now.

This also gets skewed due to talent.  It is hard to compare Horford at C with Tatum as the PF to Horford at PF with Queta at C or Horford at C with Tillman at PF.  And when it is Horford + Porzingis, who is the C?  In the end, Horford off the bench offers so much versatility that the team is just way better.  He can play PF or C and in a 1 big or 2 big line up.  He makes our bench so much better when he is the first big off the bench and not Tillman or Kornet or even Queta.

Is there any data w Tillman as the lone big?