5-0 and cruising

[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.

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

Depends on the situation to me. If they are all wide open shots because the other team is walling off the paint with bigs and not defending the perimeter I would have zero problem with it. Obviously the person shooting matters, I don’t want Oshae Brissett taking 10 wide open 3s a game. I don’t have a problem with Tatum, Brown, PP, White, Jrue, KP, Al or Hauser taking them if they’re open though.

[CelticsWhat35]

When the opposition doesn’t have any rim protectors, I don’t care if the shots are open.  50 is too many.  Also, a 3 should never be the shot on a fast break and if someone is wide open for a 3, chances are they’ll also be wide open if they take a couple dribbles in.  Maybe that penetration also opens up someone else for a layup/dunk.

I understand the game has changed, but it has to be within reason.  We don’t have the Splash Brothers and many of the 3’s we take are the first look in the shot clock without really moving the ball around much, which bails out the defense

[ozgod]

Everyone talks about shooting 50 3s, I was curious how many times we took 50 3s and if so what the results were, and the results were interesting last season, reg season and playoffs.



Only 8 games in but they've only taken over 50 3s twice, and both of those in blowouts. Progress?

[CelticsWhat35]

Everyone talks about shooting 50 3s, I was curious how many times we took 50 3s and if so what the results were, and the results were interesting last season, reg season and playoffs.



Only 8 games in but they've only taken over 50 3s twice, and both of those in blowouts. Progress?

The Wizards game is misleading because they had a really good mix of shots through the first three quarters where they built the large lead.  The bench started chucking 3’s in the 4th when the Wizards made a comeback

[ozgod]

Cruising again...lets get more people on the bandwagon 

[Kernewek]

Everyone talks about shooting 50 3s, I was curious how many times we took 50 3s and if so what the results were, and the results were interesting last season, reg season and playoffs.



Only 8 games in but they've only taken over 50 3s twice, and both of those in blowouts. Progress?

Last year it was, what, 47 threes that were too many?

[cman88]

Quality of 3's is more important to me. When they shoot a lot of wide open 3's off kick and drives, good.

The early shot clock 3's after an Iso dribble are not.

[Vermont Green]

I see much improved offensive ball movement and off-ball player movement this season and I think an overall better defensive scheme.  It isn't always perfect, but it is much better and less predictable in both cases.  I think Mazzulla and the rest of the coaching staff deserve credit for this.

As to the quantity of 3s, I am still not sold that there is a magic number of them or whatever.  Maybe there is, I just don't know.  But if the 3s are generated kind of organically through good ball movement and players moving without the ball, then I am not sure it matters whether it is 30, 40, or 50 3-attempts.  It is more about what the defense if giving you.  If there are 50 good 3-point attempts, great, take them, but it doesn't seem right to try and artificially force shots to get up to 50.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

Cruising again...lets get more people on the bandwagon 

[Phantom255x]

I still want a 3rd big, but I have to say, the bench has started to really find it's groove and they are not just keeping things stable but they are also starting to affect games and help us actually win with some of their performances (Horford, Hauser, Pritchard).

We have a lethal Starting-5 but I think we also have a great 8-man rotation with not too many flaws. Obviously there could be times they are cold shooting but what team is that not true of?

[green_bballers13]

9-2 is a good start. They are playing like the team that most of us thought they were after acquiring Porzingis and Holiday on the cheap. In retrospect, Holiday should have yielded more in that trade. The guy can be a difference maker in winning a championship.

[Goldstar88]

C’s have a top 5 offense and top 5 defense under Joe. They are winning more than 80% of their games. Not too shabby…

[SparzWizard]

I'm just a bit worried the C's may be peaking early, and, as their attitudes are, start cooling down and start losing games on purpose or play down to their competition.

[tonydelk]

I'm just a bit worried the C's may be peaking early, and, as their attitudes are, start cooling down and start losing games on purpose or play down to their competition.

This team has a lot of room to grow.  Their chemistry will improve.  Their talent is winning them games.  When the chemistry sets in they will reach another level.  When the warriors had those super teams no one worries about them peaking.  This team is to hungry to get lax.