Well done Brad

[Roy H.]

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

[Jiri Welsch]

I'm not sure that teams are chomping at the bit to trade for a PG who is a bad decision maker, an average passer, a terrible shooter, and who for the last three seasons has played defense inconsistently.

Evan Fournier (2 years) vs. Marcus Smart (4 years) at the same money?  I'm taking Fournier.

I agree Smart has those shortcomings in his game. My initial argument didn't involve Smart, but instead centered around the Celtics not being good enough to sign another wing player to $20 million/year to come off our bench.

When it comes to the Smart vs. Fournier debate: This is when it always gets interesting with the proponents of re-signing Fournier. The argument eventually becomes "X player is actually not that good and on a bad contract. We should have signed Fournier, who also is a limited player, to a similar contract." I just don't agree with that line of thinking.

Maybe you can meet me here in the middle, Roy, and say Smart (age 27 with 4 years remaining) and Fournier (age 29 with 2 years remaining) are of somewhat similar trade value. If that's the case I think it made more sense to re-sign Smart from a roster building perspective. He's a guy they wanted to try out for the starting PG role, vs. Fournier who would be a bench wing player and potentially eat into young wings' minutes when the Celtics are trying to develop them and raise their respective trade values as well.

[Wretch]

https://twitter.com/MoDakhil_NBA/status/1479473604412592131

I put the offensive struggles on the (certain) players.  The embedded video in the tweet is so endemic of the season.  To much hero ball by people who aren't heroes.

I viewed this season as a season to reset after the roster mess left behind by DA. I was an Ainge fan but TT, and EK(F) for multi-year contracts for so much money that it required 1st round picks were huge mistakes.  I give DA a pass on KW because he was amazing, until the injury and even after was good, just not worth the contract and his need to dominate the ball to be good cost JT and JB opportunities.

Brad did the best he could with a bad hand. Schroder, and Richardson are low risk moves and I think both can be traded for some asset (even if it's just a second round pick or 2) and Richardson's salary can be useful as part of a larger trade in the offseason.

[vjcsmoke]

Fournier vs Richardson this year:

Richardson 54% EFG, 46% 2PT, 40% 3PT, 84% FT

Fournier 52% EFG, 46% 2PT, 38% 3PT, 73% FT

Frankly what am I missing here?  Richardson just slightly outperforms Fournier on EFG, 3PT, and FT.  What's all the angst about losing Fournier?

It's obvious that bringing back Horford hasn't really added a lot.  And it seems to me that Smart just isn't evolving as a player.  I think we have usable assets, it's just a matter of making the right trades.

The current jigsaw puzzle does not fit.  We have talent, we're just underachieving compared to our talent level.
Time to put on your big boy pants, Brad.  Engineer a big trade that will put your stamp on the Celtics.

The problem for Steven's predecessor DA was that his last great trade netted us Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown, but he was never able to mold the team into a contender, come up with a big follow-up trade to put it all together.

[Wretch]

Fournier vs Richardson this year:

Richardson 54% EFG, 46% 2PT, 40% 3PT, 84% FT

Fournier 52% EFG, 46% 2PT, 38% 3PT, 73% FT

Frankly what am I missing here?  Richardson just slightly outperforms Fournier on EFG, 3PT, and FT.  What's all the angst about losing Fournier?

It's obvious that bringing back Horford hasn't really added a lot.  And it seems to me that Smart just isn't evolving as a player.  I think we have usable assets, it's just a matter of making the right trades.

The current jigsaw puzzle does not fit.  We have talent, we're just underachieving compared to our talent level.
Time to put on your big boy pants, Brad.  Engineer a big trade that will put your stamp on the Celtics.

The problem for Steven's predecessor DA was that his last great trade netted us Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown, but he was never able to mold the team into a contender, come up with a big follow-up trade to put it all together.

And Richardson plays D

[Roy H.]

Fournier vs Richardson this year:

Richardson 54% EFG, 46% 2PT, 40% 3PT, 84% FT

Fournier 52% EFG, 46% 2PT, 38% 3PT, 73% FT

Frankly what am I missing here?

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

Also, we could have had both.

[Moranis]

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

Fournier was shooting less attempts in Boston last year, and would be even fewer this year (given the injuries to Brown, Smart, and Tatum which accelerated his p.t. last year).  In his 6 games off the bench, Fournier was shooting 4.7 3's a game and hitting at 39.7% last year for Boston.  It was only when the injuries to other wings happened that he moved into the starting lineup and both his attempts and percentage went up last year (up to 6.7 and 49.3% as a starter in 10 games).  His role in NY is similar to his role as a starter in Boston, but he wasn't going to be a starter in Boston this year.  He was going to be a back-up like Richardson and thus while he may have shot the ball a bit more frequently, it would have only been a bit more frequently.  For a further comparison, Richardson, in a similar role in Miami (i.e. a starter and a main offensive focal point), was shooting over 6 3's a game.  Fournier is a better shooter than Richardson in a vacuum, but the volume discrepancy is by and large a result of role and opportunities. 

Also, Boston was 1.4 points per 100 possessions better with Fournier in the game last year.  This year with Richardson in the game they are 2.2 points per 100 possessions better and that is with a worse team overall. 

The simple reality is, Richardson is much better suited to come off the bench as a 3 and D specialist with more limited offensive opportunities, because Richardson is a much better defender and does just as well when he isn't a focal point offensively.  Fournier plays better with more opportunity, but can't defend well and thus is not a very good bench player.  Fournier also isn't a good enough player to be more of a focal point and the record of team's shows this i.e. when he is a top 3 shot taker his team isn't very good and when he isn't a top 3 shot taker, he plays worse, but his teams have been better, and you can't pay that guy 18+ million dollars to be a bench player.  That just isn't sound money management or value assessment.

[Roy H.]

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

Fournier was shooting less attempts in Boston last year, and would be even fewer this year (given the injuries to Brown, Smart, and Tatum which accelerated his p.t. last year).  In his 6 games off the bench, Fournier was shooting 4.7 3's a game and hitting at 39.7% last year for Boston.  It was only when the injuries to other wings happened that he moved into the starting lineup and both his attempts and percentage went up last year (up to 6.7 and 49.3% as a starter in 10 games).  His role in NY is similar to his role as a starter in Boston, but he wasn't going to be a starter in Boston this year.  He was going to be a back-up like Richardson and thus while he may have shot the ball a bit more frequently, it would have only been a bit more frequently.  For a further comparison, Richardson, in a similar role in Miami (i.e. a starter and a main offensive focal point), was shooting over 6 3's a game.  Fournier is a better shooter than Richardson in a vacuum, but the volume discrepancy is by and large a result of role and opportunities. 

Also, Boston was 1.4 points per 100 possessions better with Fournier in the game last year.  This year with Richardson in the game they are 2.2 points per 100 possessions better and that is with a worse team overall. 

The simple reality is, Richardson is much better suited to come off the bench as a 3 and D specialist with more limited offensive opportunities, because Richardson is a much better defender and does just as well when he isn't a focal point offensively.  Fournier plays better with more opportunity, but can't defend well and thus is not a very good bench player.  Fournier also isn't a good enough player to be more of a focal point and the record of team's shows this i.e. when he is a top 3 shot taker his team isn't very good and when he isn't a top 3 shot taker, he plays worse, but his teams have been better, and you can't pay that guy 18+ million dollars to be a bench player.  That just isn't sound money management or value assessment.

Fournier should have been resigned, and he should have been the starter.

Timelord / Horford / Kanter
Tatum / Williams
Brown / Richardson
Fournier / Romeo or Nesmith
Smart / Schroder / Pritchard

That would have given us three scorers, with Timelord and Smart focused on defense and ball movement.  It's a much better balanced team, allowing everyone to play to their strengths.

[Moranis]

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

Fournier was shooting less attempts in Boston last year, and would be even fewer this year (given the injuries to Brown, Smart, and Tatum which accelerated his p.t. last year).  In his 6 games off the bench, Fournier was shooting 4.7 3's a game and hitting at 39.7% last year for Boston.  It was only when the injuries to other wings happened that he moved into the starting lineup and both his attempts and percentage went up last year (up to 6.7 and 49.3% as a starter in 10 games).  His role in NY is similar to his role as a starter in Boston, but he wasn't going to be a starter in Boston this year.  He was going to be a back-up like Richardson and thus while he may have shot the ball a bit more frequently, it would have only been a bit more frequently.  For a further comparison, Richardson, in a similar role in Miami (i.e. a starter and a main offensive focal point), was shooting over 6 3's a game.  Fournier is a better shooter than Richardson in a vacuum, but the volume discrepancy is by and large a result of role and opportunities. 

Also, Boston was 1.4 points per 100 possessions better with Fournier in the game last year.  This year with Richardson in the game they are 2.2 points per 100 possessions better and that is with a worse team overall. 

The simple reality is, Richardson is much better suited to come off the bench as a 3 and D specialist with more limited offensive opportunities, because Richardson is a much better defender and does just as well when he isn't a focal point offensively.  Fournier plays better with more opportunity, but can't defend well and thus is not a very good bench player.  Fournier also isn't a good enough player to be more of a focal point and the record of team's shows this i.e. when he is a top 3 shot taker his team isn't very good and when he isn't a top 3 shot taker, he plays worse, but his teams have been better, and you can't pay that guy 18+ million dollars to be a bench player.  That just isn't sound money management or value assessment.

Fournier should have been resigned, and he should have been the starter.

Timelord / Horford / Kanter
Tatum / Williams
Brown / Richardson
Fournier / Romeo or Nesmith
Smart / Schroder / Pritchard

That would have given us three scorers, with Timelord and Smart focused on defense and ball movement.  It's a much better balanced team, allowing everyone to play to their strengths.

And Boston would be worse with that lineup because that is not a role a winning team should have Fournier in.  He isn't good enough to be a 3rd offensive option.  It just isn't his role.  He is best suited as a shooter off the bench.  Those guys are valuable, but they aren't 18 million a year a valuable.  He should be someone like Otto Porter, Jr. in Golden State.  That is Fournier's sweet spot and bread and butter. 

[Roy H.]

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

Fournier was shooting less attempts in Boston last year, and would be even fewer this year (given the injuries to Brown, Smart, and Tatum which accelerated his p.t. last year).  In his 6 games off the bench, Fournier was shooting 4.7 3's a game and hitting at 39.7% last year for Boston.  It was only when the injuries to other wings happened that he moved into the starting lineup and both his attempts and percentage went up last year (up to 6.7 and 49.3% as a starter in 10 games).  His role in NY is similar to his role as a starter in Boston, but he wasn't going to be a starter in Boston this year.  He was going to be a back-up like Richardson and thus while he may have shot the ball a bit more frequently, it would have only been a bit more frequently.  For a further comparison, Richardson, in a similar role in Miami (i.e. a starter and a main offensive focal point), was shooting over 6 3's a game.  Fournier is a better shooter than Richardson in a vacuum, but the volume discrepancy is by and large a result of role and opportunities. 

Also, Boston was 1.4 points per 100 possessions better with Fournier in the game last year.  This year with Richardson in the game they are 2.2 points per 100 possessions better and that is with a worse team overall. 

The simple reality is, Richardson is much better suited to come off the bench as a 3 and D specialist with more limited offensive opportunities, because Richardson is a much better defender and does just as well when he isn't a focal point offensively.  Fournier plays better with more opportunity, but can't defend well and thus is not a very good bench player.  Fournier also isn't a good enough player to be more of a focal point and the record of team's shows this i.e. when he is a top 3 shot taker his team isn't very good and when he isn't a top 3 shot taker, he plays worse, but his teams have been better, and you can't pay that guy 18+ million dollars to be a bench player.  That just isn't sound money management or value assessment.

Fournier should have been resigned, and he should have been the starter.

Timelord / Horford / Kanter
Tatum / Williams
Brown / Richardson
Fournier / Romeo or Nesmith
Smart / Schroder / Pritchard

That would have given us three scorers, with Timelord and Smart focused on defense and ball movement.  It's a much better balanced team, allowing everyone to play to their strengths.

And Boston would be worse with that lineup because that is not a role a winning team should have Fournier in.  He isn't good enough to be a 3rd offensive option.  It just isn't his role.  He is best suited as a shooter off the bench.  Those guys are valuable, but they aren't 18 million a year a valuable.  He should be someone like Otto Porter, Jr. in Golden State.  That is Fournier's sweet spot and bread and butter.

Nonsense.  Fournier hasn’t consistently come off the bench since he was in Denver, back in 2014.

[RodyTur10]

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

Fournier was shooting less attempts in Boston last year, and would be even fewer this year (given the injuries to Brown, Smart, and Tatum which accelerated his p.t. last year).  In his 6 games off the bench, Fournier was shooting 4.7 3's a game and hitting at 39.7% last year for Boston.  It was only when the injuries to other wings happened that he moved into the starting lineup and both his attempts and percentage went up last year (up to 6.7 and 49.3% as a starter in 10 games).  His role in NY is similar to his role as a starter in Boston, but he wasn't going to be a starter in Boston this year.  He was going to be a back-up like Richardson and thus while he may have shot the ball a bit more frequently, it would have only been a bit more frequently.  For a further comparison, Richardson, in a similar role in Miami (i.e. a starter and a main offensive focal point), was shooting over 6 3's a game.  Fournier is a better shooter than Richardson in a vacuum, but the volume discrepancy is by and large a result of role and opportunities. 

Also, Boston was 1.4 points per 100 possessions better with Fournier in the game last year.  This year with Richardson in the game they are 2.2 points per 100 possessions better and that is with a worse team overall. 

The simple reality is, Richardson is much better suited to come off the bench as a 3 and D specialist with more limited offensive opportunities, because Richardson is a much better defender and does just as well when he isn't a focal point offensively.  Fournier plays better with more opportunity, but can't defend well and thus is not a very good bench player.  Fournier also isn't a good enough player to be more of a focal point and the record of team's shows this i.e. when he is a top 3 shot taker his team isn't very good and when he isn't a top 3 shot taker, he plays worse, but his teams have been better, and you can't pay that guy 18+ million dollars to be a bench player.  That just isn't sound money management or value assessment.

Fournier should have been resigned, and he should have been the starter.

Timelord / Horford / Kanter
Tatum / Williams
Brown / Richardson
Fournier / Romeo or Nesmith
Smart / Schroder / Pritchard

That would have given us three scorers, with Timelord and Smart focused on defense and ball movement.  It's a much better balanced team, allowing everyone to play to their strengths.

And Boston would be worse with that lineup because that is not a role a winning team should have Fournier in.  He isn't good enough to be a 3rd offensive option.  It just isn't his role.  He is best suited as a shooter off the bench.  Those guys are valuable, but they aren't 18 million a year a valuable.  He should be someone like Otto Porter, Jr. in Golden State.  That is Fournier's sweet spot and bread and butter.

I like Otto Porter a lot, but Fournier is a much more skilled basketball player. Bad comparison i.m.o.

I view Evan Fournier like a Tim Hardaway, Buddy Hield, Duncan Robinson or Luke Kennard. Obvious defensive liabilities but they provide an extra dimension on offense with their shooting and off-ball movement that opens up the court for star players. That's why they often start despite their vulnerabilty on defense.
They also receive (relatively) big contracts due to the huge demand for shooters.

[todd_days_41]

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

Fournier was shooting less attempts in Boston last year, and would be even fewer this year (given the injuries to Brown, Smart, and Tatum which accelerated his p.t. last year).  In his 6 games off the bench, Fournier was shooting 4.7 3's a game and hitting at 39.7% last year for Boston.  It was only when the injuries to other wings happened that he moved into the starting lineup and both his attempts and percentage went up last year (up to 6.7 and 49.3% as a starter in 10 games).  His role in NY is similar to his role as a starter in Boston, but he wasn't going to be a starter in Boston this year.  He was going to be a back-up like Richardson and thus while he may have shot the ball a bit more frequently, it would have only been a bit more frequently.  For a further comparison, Richardson, in a similar role in Miami (i.e. a starter and a main offensive focal point), was shooting over 6 3's a game.  Fournier is a better shooter than Richardson in a vacuum, but the volume discrepancy is by and large a result of role and opportunities. 

Also, Boston was 1.4 points per 100 possessions better with Fournier in the game last year.  This year with Richardson in the game they are 2.2 points per 100 possessions better and that is with a worse team overall. 

The simple reality is, Richardson is much better suited to come off the bench as a 3 and D specialist with more limited offensive opportunities, because Richardson is a much better defender and does just as well when he isn't a focal point offensively.  Fournier plays better with more opportunity, but can't defend well and thus is not a very good bench player.  Fournier also isn't a good enough player to be more of a focal point and the record of team's shows this i.e. when he is a top 3 shot taker his team isn't very good and when he isn't a top 3 shot taker, he plays worse, but his teams have been better, and you can't pay that guy 18+ million dollars to be a bench player.  That just isn't sound money management or value assessment.

Fournier should have been resigned, and he should have been the starter.

Timelord / Horford / Kanter
Tatum / Williams
Brown / Richardson
Fournier / Romeo or Nesmith
Smart / Schroder / Pritchard

That would have given us three scorers, with Timelord and Smart focused on defense and ball movement.  It's a much better balanced team, allowing everyone to play to their strengths.

And Boston would be worse with that lineup because that is not a role a winning team should have Fournier in.  He isn't good enough to be a 3rd offensive option.  It just isn't his role.  He is best suited as a shooter off the bench.  Those guys are valuable, but they aren't 18 million a year a valuable.  He should be someone like Otto Porter, Jr. in Golden State.  That is Fournier's sweet spot and bread and butter.

Nonsense.  Fournier hasn’t consistently come off the bench since he was in Denver, back in 2014.

Not really disagreeing with you, but would point out that starting in Orlando isn't the equivalent of staring almost anywhere else.

[BruceBanner18]

When talking about outside shooting, why do people often talking about 3PT%, but completely ignore volume?

Shooting a high percentage at a large volume is significantly more valuable than shooting the same percentage at lower volume, no?  Both because it translates to more direct points, but also because it stretches the floor and opens up offensive opportunities for others.  The threat of a three is an important part of an offense.

Fournier was shooting less attempts in Boston last year, and would be even fewer this year (given the injuries to Brown, Smart, and Tatum which accelerated his p.t. last year).  In his 6 games off the bench, Fournier was shooting 4.7 3's a game and hitting at 39.7% last year for Boston.  It was only when the injuries to other wings happened that he moved into the starting lineup and both his attempts and percentage went up last year (up to 6.7 and 49.3% as a starter in 10 games).  His role in NY is similar to his role as a starter in Boston, but he wasn't going to be a starter in Boston this year.  He was going to be a back-up like Richardson and thus while he may have shot the ball a bit more frequently, it would have only been a bit more frequently.  For a further comparison, Richardson, in a similar role in Miami (i.e. a starter and a main offensive focal point), was shooting over 6 3's a game.  Fournier is a better shooter than Richardson in a vacuum, but the volume discrepancy is by and large a result of role and opportunities. 

Also, Boston was 1.4 points per 100 possessions better with Fournier in the game last year.  This year with Richardson in the game they are 2.2 points per 100 possessions better and that is with a worse team overall. 

The simple reality is, Richardson is much better suited to come off the bench as a 3 and D specialist with more limited offensive opportunities, because Richardson is a much better defender and does just as well when he isn't a focal point offensively.  Fournier plays better with more opportunity, but can't defend well and thus is not a very good bench player.  Fournier also isn't a good enough player to be more of a focal point and the record of team's shows this i.e. when he is a top 3 shot taker his team isn't very good and when he isn't a top 3 shot taker, he plays worse, but his teams have been better, and you can't pay that guy 18+ million dollars to be a bench player.  That just isn't sound money management or value assessment.

Fournier should have been resigned, and he should have been the starter.

Timelord / Horford / Kanter
Tatum / Williams
Brown / Richardson
Fournier / Romeo or Nesmith
Smart / Schroder / Pritchard

That would have given us three scorers, with Timelord and Smart focused on defense and ball movement.  It's a much better balanced team, allowing everyone to play to their strengths.

And Boston would be worse with that lineup because that is not a role a winning team should have Fournier in.  He isn't good enough to be a 3rd offensive option.  It just isn't his role.  He is best suited as a shooter off the bench.  Those guys are valuable, but they aren't 18 million a year a valuable.  He should be someone like Otto Porter, Jr. in Golden State.  That is Fournier's sweet spot and bread and butter.

Nonsense.  Fournier hasn’t consistently come off the bench since he was in Denver, back in 2014.

I totally agree we need a shooter but he's been garbage for NY this year and the bench is where he's heading. I'd say better comps at this point are are Eric Bledsoe and Eric Gordon.

Vs. the Celtics (three games):
◻️ 35.0 PPG
◻️ 6.7 3-PG
◻️ 55.4 FG%
◻️ 54.1 3P%

Vs. the rest of the league:
◻️ 11.7 PPG
◻️ 2.3 3-PG
◻️ 38.6 FG%
◻️ 35.5 3P%

[moiso]

I'd have Fournier in the starting lineup.  I'd rather have him getting the cleaner looks he'd get playing with the stars.

[hardlyyardley]

With the starters?....who would he gett the passes from?