I.T was 2 points away from history

[rochrist]

Agree. Wins only. Remainder is irrelevant.

I'd add though that this near-record is a reflection of a team that isn't going anywhere. Not with 1 player doing the scoring. The guy is a selfish ball hog in the fourth that just happens to be a great shot maker.

Fun to watch though. Like the Globetrotters without the jokes.

Bad analysis is bad.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I disagree that he's a selfish ballhog. I also don't think it's a bad thing to have a great shot maker who's clutch in the big moments. In fact, why would you not want someone who can take over in those situations? Isn't that what every franchise and fanbase pines for?

Team ball has its place, but clutch individual players also have theirs. How many big shots did Bird have in his career? A heck of a lot more than McHale, Parish, Ainge, and DJ put together. Those were great players, but they weren't Bird. Similarly, guys like Bradley, Smart, and Horford will occasionally come up clutch, but they're no IT.

This isn't to say that IT is on the same level as Bird, so please don't misunderstand me. My point is that we, as Celtics Nation, have a great scorer on our team. Great scorers are hard to find, and clutch performers even harder, and we haven't had either since Pierce/Ray/KG several years ago.

And Bradley, the team's second-best shooter, isn't even playing right now. Horford's shot poorly the last couple of games, and has failed in the clutch a couple of times this season (on bunnies, no less). And Smart is usually a subpar shooter.

And it's not like IT is rarely passing the ball, averaging 6.3 assists per game for the season, 6.7 over the last 10 games.

Given these particular conditions, why would anyone want the ball in someone else's hands?

I guess some Celtics fans want a team wherein virtually anyone can have the ball in the closing minutes with the ability to make winning plays. Well, all the rotation players on this team have the ability to make various good plays—clutch D by Smart, clutch blocks by Horford, etc.—but none of them is capable of consistently being the guy. Even on an all-time-great team such as the '86 Celtics there was only one.

[gift]

Agree. Wins only. Remainder is irrelevant.

I'd add though that this near-record is a reflection of a team that isn't going anywhere. Not with 1 player doing the scoring. The guy is a selfish ball hog in the fourth that just happens to be a great shot maker.

Fun to watch though. Like the Globetrotters without the jokes.

He dominates the ball, for sure, but the team is generally in trouble late when doesn't take over. I can't attach the word, "selfish", to that. He also moves quickly into the offense and works off the ball. It's not like he's pounding the ball for 15 seconds and then taking a shot.

I'm glad they didn't push for the record. It's a sign of a good team when they don't care about that kind of stuff. Probably weren't even aware of it.

Very glad to not see late 90's ISO-ball too much, but it's not like he's bailing out the team late in the clock with all that Q4 shooting. I'm not sure we get better by watching him scramble.

Honestly, I think it's partly because he isn't long enough to get passes off sometimes, esp when defense tightens.

I wouldn't want to see the team have to be bailed out late in the shot clock on a consistent basis. You'd be happier if this was how all of his shots were coming?

He's also been passing more lately in the 4th because of the defensive attention and still scoring.

The only criticism I could imagine is that he sometimes gets caught under the basket without a dribble and then has a hard time either shooting or passing. But these have literally been a handful of times this season.

As long as he's efficient, I don't care about his usage. If he becomes inefficient and still jacks up shots, then we can criticize him. Bottom line is he's winning games that would be lost without him.