Author Topic: Time To Panic?  (Read 13880 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #60 on: January 13, 2025, 04:42:46 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 62396
  • Tommy Points: -25487
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Celtics three-point shooting:
last year/this year/since Dec 1st

Tatum: 37.6%/36.4%/34.6%
Brown: 35.4%/32.2%/30.1%
White: 39.6%/38.5%/34.6%
Holiday: 42.9%/34.5%/34.6%
Horford: 41.9%/36.0%/29.8%
Hauser: 42.2%/37.4%/41.3%
Porzingis: 37.5%/34.9%/36.0%
Pritchard: 38.5%/41.4%/38.7%

7 of their top 8 rotation players are shooting worse from three this year than last, and its been especially bad in the stretch since December 1st. Alot of the issue they are having is they just can't seem to make shots. Got to think water will eventually find its level with the shooting.

It's likely a volume and shot quality issue.  The Celtics have been jacking up a ton of bad shots this season, all for the sake of taking more 3's per game.  We're talking off the dribble, contested 3's early in the shot clock without passing the ball.  I can understand emphasizing 3's, but they should come within the flow of a good offense.  These shots are not that.  They're bad shots.  Low percentage shots.

More driving, inside out basketball that leads to open 3's will result in better percentages.

The data doesn't really back this up either.

Looking at NBA.com/s tracking data, last year the C's took 36.8 of their 42.5 threes per game with 4+ or 6+ feet of separation from the nearest defender. Thats 86.6% of their threes were open or wide open. This year its 41.6 of 48.6 threes a game, or 85.6%. So although they are taking more threes, they've generally been the same amount of open.

What HAS changed is the make rate. Last year they were 38.8% on open threes and 41.6% on wide open threes. This year its 36.3% on open threes and 38.5% on wide open threes.

Once again the issue isn't type of shot. It isn't chucking. Its not poor decision making. It's just that they are missing shots they made last year. It's really that simple.

The team has two issues right now:

1) Shooting slump
2) Crunch time defense has been bad.

At the same time, we've gone from taking fewer than five contested threes per game to more than seven.  Those contested shots are taking the place inside shots.  That's probably a couple points per 100 possessions that we're giving away.

Okay, let's do the math.

Let's say two shots in the restricted area become two contested threes per game. C's shoot about 70% on restricted area shots. That would be 2.8 ppg. If you shoot two extra "tight" threes per game instead at 30% you score 1.8 ppg. So really at worst the C's are maybe sacrificing 1 ppg by skewing their shot selection more towards threes.

Their PPG has declined in raw terms 2.6ppg since last year. So even IF you think they are chucking too many threes it appears there's some greater issue besides shot selection.

I don't disagree that the C's could stand to shift their shot profile slightly back towards drives and paint shots. But the main issue remains they are shooting poorly. Lats year they shot 38.8% from three, this year 36.2%. The reason the Cav's look unbeatable this year? A 40.1% mark from three. In the last 9 years only 1 team has cracked 39.2% from three for a year, the clippers in the bubble season shot 41.1%.

Well, your mathematical analysis didn't take into account who is doing the shooting, the spots we are shooting from, how soon in the shot clock we are shooting, etc.  Not all "open" 3PAs are good shots.


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

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #61 on: January 14, 2025, 04:26:40 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6587
  • Tommy Points: 641
Celtics three-point shooting:
last year/this year/since Dec 1st

Tatum: 37.6%/36.4%/34.6%
Brown: 35.4%/32.2%/30.1%
White: 39.6%/38.5%/34.6%
Holiday: 42.9%/34.5%/34.6%
Horford: 41.9%/36.0%/29.8%
Hauser: 42.2%/37.4%/41.3%
Porzingis: 37.5%/34.9%/36.0%
Pritchard: 38.5%/41.4%/38.7%

7 of their top 8 rotation players are shooting worse from three this year than last, and its been especially bad in the stretch since December 1st. Alot of the issue they are having is they just can't seem to make shots. Got to think water will eventually find its level with the shooting.

It's likely a volume and shot quality issue.  The Celtics have been jacking up a ton of bad shots this season, all for the sake of taking more 3's per game.  We're talking off the dribble, contested 3's early in the shot clock without passing the ball.  I can understand emphasizing 3's, but they should come within the flow of a good offense.  These shots are not that.  They're bad shots.  Low percentage shots.

More driving, inside out basketball that leads to open 3's will result in better percentages.

The data doesn't really back this up either.

Looking at NBA.com/s tracking data, last year the C's took 36.8 of their 42.5 threes per game with 4+ or 6+ feet of separation from the nearest defender. Thats 86.6% of their threes were open or wide open. This year its 41.6 of 48.6 threes a game, or 85.6%. So although they are taking more threes, they've generally been the same amount of open.

What HAS changed is the make rate. Last year they were 38.8% on open threes and 41.6% on wide open threes. This year its 36.3% on open threes and 38.5% on wide open threes.

Once again the issue isn't type of shot. It isn't chucking. Its not poor decision making. It's just that they are missing shots they made last year. It's really that simple.

The team has two issues right now:

1) Shooting slump
2) Crunch time defense has been bad.

At the same time, we've gone from taking fewer than five contested threes per game to more than seven.  Those contested shots are taking the place inside shots.  That's probably a couple points per 100 possessions that we're giving away.

Okay, let's do the math.

Let's say two shots in the restricted area become two contested threes per game. C's shoot about 70% on restricted area shots. That would be 2.8 ppg. If you shoot two extra "tight" threes per game instead at 30% you score 1.8 ppg. So really at worst the C's are maybe sacrificing 1 ppg by skewing their shot selection more towards threes.

Their PPG has declined in raw terms 2.6ppg since last year. So even IF you think they are chucking too many threes it appears there's some greater issue besides shot selection.

I don't disagree that the C's could stand to shift their shot profile slightly back towards drives and paint shots. But the main issue remains they are shooting poorly. Lats year they shot 38.8% from three, this year 36.2%. The reason the Cav's look unbeatable this year? A 40.1% mark from three. In the last 9 years only 1 team has cracked 39.2% from three for a year, the clippers in the bubble season shot 41.1%.

Well, your mathematical analysis didn't take into account who is doing the shooting, the spots we are shooting from, how soon in the shot clock we are shooting, etc.  Not all "open" 3PAs are good shots.

Looking at who is shooting
% of all team threes they took last year - % of all team threes they've taken this year

Tatum: 17.5% - 19.4%
Brown: 11.8% - 10.9 %
White: 14.2% - 17.1%
Holiday: 9.2% - 9.1%
Horford: 7.4% -8.6%
Hauser: 13.4% - 8.9%
Pritchard: 11.0% - 16.7%
KP: 8.4% - 4.9%

So the only huge drops are Hauser and Porzingis (because they've been injured). But that slack had largely went to White and Pritchard, who are two of your better shooters. So it's not a "who is shooting" issue either.

As for where their are shooting: Last year 21.9% of their threes were from the corner, this year its 20.8%, so not a huge difference there either.

Neither of these things is surprising. On a large enough sample size its very rare that stuff like shot selection or who is shooting will change a lot year to year (barring injury). The threes a team shoots are somewhat self-weeding, teams WANT to take good shots and so they tend to converge on shooting shots that are open by guys that can make them. So actually, in most cases open threes are in fact good threes since teams will tend not to want to take bad shots at all.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #62 on: January 15, 2025, 09:50:15 PM »

Offline Phantom255x

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36942
  • Tommy Points: 3371
  • On To Banner 19!
"Tough times never last, but tough people do." - Robert H. Schuller

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #63 on: January 15, 2025, 09:52:16 PM »

Offline SparzWizard

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18734
  • Tommy Points: 1118
If I wanted to watch the 2020-2021 Celtics season I would've watched that instead of this garbage. Or the Kyrie-led season. This looks just as bad as those szns


#FireJoe
#JTJB (Just Trade Jaylen Brown) 2022 - 2025
I am the Master of Panic.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2025, 06:15:03 AM »

Offline TheReaLPuba

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1031
  • Tommy Points: 79
This team is playing like garbage

Been over a month now


Team lacks identity/leadership

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2025, 07:41:15 AM »

Offline celticinorlando

  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32605
  • Tommy Points: 834
  • Larry Bird for President
We are about half way through the season and they have yet to play any defense. They look lazy and uninterested almost each game. They look destined for the 3 seed and a second round exit if they don't get things together.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2025, 08:00:39 AM »

Online Birdman

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10192
  • Tommy Points: 462
Relax folks, as long as we stay healthy when April comes, we be okay..but team needs to add to bench thou..Walker beca fine addition & should kept him
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2025, 08:08:19 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13352
  • Tommy Points: 1007
In the last 5 games:

White          -47
Porzingis     -36
Brown         -34
Holiday       -33
Tatum         -10

As a team, 28% from 3 in these last 5 games (our starters are at about 26%).  Our opponents are 40% from 3 in those 5 games.  White, Holiday, and Brown are 14% from 3 combined in the last 5 games.

I thought Tatum played well last night.  He was creating, making passes, no one could make a shot.  Pritchard did his thing.  Not much else.  I don't know what is going on.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2025, 08:28:43 AM »

Offline celticinorlando

  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32605
  • Tommy Points: 834
  • Larry Bird for President
At some point they have to realize Hauser as the only playable wing off the bench is not going to cut it. He is not right and when he is he is streaky. Walsh is not the answer. They need someone else on this bench that can get them 10 points a night.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #69 on: January 16, 2025, 09:59:08 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13352
  • Tommy Points: 1007
It is interesting that Horford as a starter is 43.8% from 3 and +7.0 per game but off the bench, 37.2% and only +1.3.

For the season, the starters are +5.7 but in the last 5 games, the starters are -5.8 (mindboggling).  The Bench on the season is +3.1 and -0.2 in the last 5.  I am not sure exactly how they figure the team stats between starters and bench, but this is what NBA.com stats sorter says.

I am ready to switch back to Horford starting and Porzingis off the bench.  The starters need to get their mojo back and the bench needs some scoring help.  This doesn't mean that it is a change for the whole season or even the whole game.  I don't think Porzingis would mind, he seems willing to do whatever the team needs.

Eventually, it would be nice if the starters could remember how to play with Porzingis.  It just seems forced right now.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2025, 10:07:02 AM by Vermont Green »

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #70 on: January 16, 2025, 10:07:47 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15205
  • Tommy Points: 1033
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Panic usually means doing something you may regret later on. The Time To Panic ends in a few weeks at the trade deadline. That said, CBS does not seem like the panic type of personality so he is not likely to pull off a big trade.

As a fan, I will not panic but I may stop watching RS games. There is just no point in wasting 2.5 hours every other night. This team is not entertaining. Perhaps I am better off with a movie or a comedy show.

Re: Time To Panic? (Zach Lowe's take)
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2025, 10:52:27 AM »

Offline President Red

  • Joe Mazzulla
  • Posts: 138
  • Tommy Points: 57
https://x.com/ZachLowe_NBA/status/1879899486199152852



See new posts
Conversation
Zach Lowe
@ZachLowe_NBA
Biggest reason for any Celtics anxiety is the top of the East/path to Finals looks much harder than last season. Beyond that (and aside from championship hangover) a few guys not shooting as well + some nights where they could use one more versatile perimeter reserve. Not worried.
Quote
Zach Lowe
@ZachLowe_NBA
?
1h
I'm not worried about the Celtics yet -- this stretch reeks of mid-season malaise -- but it is very, very important to note that they deserve to lose when they wear the hideous jerseys they wore last night. The basketball gods took note.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #72 on: January 16, 2025, 11:08:56 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13352
  • Tommy Points: 1007
The one change/addition that they may need to consider is some bench scoring.  It comes down to Hauser largely.  If you feel he is going to get healthier and stronger and back to the guy he was last season, then we are probably fine.  If it is more, what you see is what you get, then this is not last season's Hauser and we are missing that scoring option.

Pritchard made up for this at the start of the season but he is now reverting back more to his career norms (as you would expect).  Horford has not played well since Porzingis has returned (or at least has not scored as well) and is not helping the bench much.  So that would be the main fix/consideration.  It is realistic to bring in a bench player and integrate that bench player into the team.

If the starters keep playing bad, that is going to be tough to fix.  It is not like you can blow up the starting unit and expect to get it together for a title run.  Maybe start Horford over Porzingis, but you can't do much more than that mid-season.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #73 on: January 16, 2025, 11:26:03 AM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7921
  • Tommy Points: 653
This team just isn't fun to watch this year.
Last season I'd make time to watch as many as I could. This year it's not must see for me.

If they don't care to show up, why should I?
Back to wanting Joe fired.

Re: Time To Panic?
« Reply #74 on: January 16, 2025, 11:32:26 AM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31704
  • Tommy Points: 3844
  • Yup
This team just isn't fun to watch this year.
Last season I'd make time to watch as many as I could. This year it's not must see for me.

If they don't care to show up, why should I?

This is pretty much my take.  I'm panicking.  I just want to enjoy watching them. 
Yup