When did the Celtics stop using common sense?

[Reggie's Ghost]

I agree completely with this OP, one of those shocking moments that come all too often with Doc at the helm.  Anyone could see you have to get that shot off in 6 seconds no matter what, and Paul was holding the ball on his hip like we were down 1.  Hard to fathom, and it was because of that decision (even if they whistle the foul on that play, we're still totally screwed) that the game was out of reach.

It's as flat a conclusion as you can get out of such a bizarre, gutty comeback!  Doc is a players coach with a great book of inbounds plays, not a guy who can be counted on for ingenuity or problem solving...

[nickagneta]

I agree completely with this OP, one of those shocking moments that come all too often with Doc at the helm.  Anyone could see you have to get that shot off in 6 seconds no matter what, and Paul was holding the ball on his hip like we were down 1.  Hard to fathom, and it was because of that decision (even if they whistle the foul on that play, we're still totally screwed) that the game was out of reach.

It's as flat a conclusion as you can get out of such a bizarre, gutty comeback!  Doc is a players coach with a great book of inbounds plays, not a guy who can be counted on for ingenuity or problem solving...

Do you know for sure that giving the ball to Pierce and having him dribble with little to no movement for 12 seconds is the play that Doc drew up? Seems to me like Pierce could have easily free lanced, like he is prone to do, and could have completely forgotten about the game situation.

I can't blame Doc for stuff like that and not fouling on the inbounds allowing Gordon his three pointer if the players on the court ae too stupid to read a game situation and do the right thing.

[Reggie's Ghost]

I agree completely with this OP, one of those shocking moments that come all too often with Doc at the helm.  Anyone could see you have to get that shot off in 6 seconds no matter what, and Paul was holding the ball on his hip like we were down 1.  Hard to fathom, and it was because of that decision (even if they whistle the foul on that play, we're still totally screwed) that the game was out of reach.

It's as flat a conclusion as you can get out of such a bizarre, gutty comeback!  Doc is a players coach with a great book of inbounds plays, not a guy who can be counted on for ingenuity or problem solving...

Do you know for sure that giving the ball to Pierce and having him dribble with little to no movement for 12 seconds is the play that Doc drew up? Seems to me like Pierce could have easily free lanced, like he is prone to do, and could have completely forgotten about the game situation.

I can't blame Doc for stuff like that and not fouling on the inbounds allowing Gordon his three pointer if the players on the court ae too stupid to read a game situation and do the right thing.

Point taken, I don't know if Doc drew this up.  Still, Doc isn't in that huddle like "Ok guys, here's the play, but we've got to get the ball up in 6"  Isn't the coaches job to make sure the players remember what's going on?  That way, players don't "freelance" crucial plays, since they have the responsibility of executing the game plan, not drawing it up.

Ultimately, you're taking the position that the players are responsible for the on-court action here, and it's true--Paul showed incredible lack of focus here, and he's the one who ticked the time down, not Doc, but I ultimately I think this needs to be established as part of the game plan by the coach.  He's the leader of the team, he's responsible for the strategy they employ, and there's no way Paul was standing there at half court like "I know Doc told me to shoot in 6, but I'm just gonna take my time."

[GeoDim]

I agree completely with this OP, one of those shocking moments that come all too often with Doc at the helm.  Anyone could see you have to get that shot off in 6 seconds no matter what, and Paul was holding the ball on his hip like we were down 1.  Hard to fathom, and it was because of that decision (even if they whistle the foul on that play, we're still totally screwed) that the game was out of reach.

It's as flat a conclusion as you can get out of such a bizarre, gutty comeback!  Doc is a players coach with a great book of inbounds plays, not a guy who can be counted on for ingenuity or problem solving...

Do you know for sure that giving the ball to Pierce and having him dribble with little to no movement for 12 seconds is the play that Doc drew up? Seems to me like Pierce could have easily free lanced, like he is prone to do, and could have completely forgotten about the game situation.

I can't blame Doc for stuff like that and not fouling on the inbounds allowing Gordon his three pointer if the players on the court ae too stupid to read a game situation and do the right thing.

Point taken, I don't know if Doc drew this up.  Still, Doc isn't in that huddle like "Ok guys, here's the play, but we've got to get the ball up in 6"  Isn't the coaches job to make sure the players remember what's going on?  That way, players don't "freelance" crucial plays, since they have the responsibility of executing the game plan, not drawing it up.

Ultimately, you're taking the position that the players are responsible for the on-court action here, and it's true--Paul showed incredible lack of focus here, and he's the one who ticked the time down, not Doc, but I ultimately I think this needs to be established as part of the game plan by the coach.  He's the leader of the team, he's responsible for the strategy they employ, and there's no way Paul was standing there at half court like "I know Doc told me to shoot in 6, but I'm just gonna take my time."

What bothers me is that this type of play is so elementary.  Get a quick shot off, no matter what.  Even a bad shot increases your chances in this situation.  If you go past the 24 second mark, you're putting yourself in a must-foul situation on the next play, which is usually almost impossible to overcome.

[yagru]

You know in the big scheme of things I dont really think this was a big deal. They didnt have a clear look.. Face it we had our chances all game.. even in the last few minutes we had some huge chances and didnt take advantage.. this was a last resort play and i dont think it really would have changed the outcome

[GeoDim]

You know in the big scheme of things I dont really think this was a big deal. They didnt have a clear look.. Face it we had our chances all game.. even in the last few minutes we had some huge chances and didnt take advantage.. this was a last resort play and i dont think it really would have changed the outcome

Down 4.  Quick bucket. Down 1 or 2. Defense. Another bucket for the tie or win.

That is far from unlikely.  Quite possible, actually.  Did you not watch the last series?  What Pierce did was erase any chance we had.  When you were down by 28 and have a chance to either win the game or go into overtime, this shouldn't be ruined by foolish decision-making. 

Yes, there were some missed opportunities earlier, but you can't always control how the ball decides to roll.  In a situation like this, you have complete control on how to play it out.  This is the playoffs and the Wins and Losses are kind of important.

[Steve Weinman]

You know in the big scheme of things I dont really think this was a big deal. They didnt have a clear look.. Face it we had our chances all game.. even in the last few minutes we had some huge chances and didnt take advantage.. this was a last resort play and i dont think it really would have changed the outcome

Down 4.  Quick bucket. Down 1 or 2. Defense. Another bucket for the tie or win.

  When you were down by 28 and have a chance to either win the game or go into overtime, this shouldn't be ruined by foolish decision-making. 

Whoa.  Let's be clear on one thing: I've got a lot more of an issue with the "getting down by 28" business than I do with what transpired at the end. 

I don't know what the intricacies of the design were for the last 35 seconds.  I do know that the team played a disgusting brand of basketball for the first 28 minutes of this game.  Preventing that nonsense or anything like it from recurring is the primary issue.

While a 2-for-1 type of result would have been nice at the end, it was far from the biggest concern on Monday night.

-sw

[GeoDim]

You know in the big scheme of things I dont really think this was a big deal. They didnt have a clear look.. Face it we had our chances all game.. even in the last few minutes we had some huge chances and didnt take advantage.. this was a last resort play and i dont think it really would have changed the outcome

Down 4.  Quick bucket. Down 1 or 2. Defense. Another bucket for the tie or win.

  When you were down by 28 and have a chance to either win the game or go into overtime, this shouldn't be ruined by foolish decision-making. 

Whoa.  Let's be clear on one thing: I've got a lot more of an issue with the "getting down by 28" business than I do with what transpired at the end. 

I don't know what the intricacies of the design were for the last 35 seconds.  I do know that the team played a disgusting brand of basketball for the first 28 minutes of this game.  Preventing that nonsense or anything like it from recurring is the primary issue.

While a 2-for-1 type of result would have been nice at the end, it was far from the biggest concern on Monday night.

-sw

They were down by 28 due to poor play.  Why make it worse with poor decision making too?  Your shots may not fall for you, but you still have complete control over your decisions.  Paul missed the final free throw in game 1 of the last series that would have sealed the game, but this happens.  It's tough to get on someone over one missed shot.  Dribbling the clock down in an obvious game-deciding 2-for-1 situation is inexcusable.

My bottom line is that the way the last play was managed gave us no chance to win.  Regardless of what transpired in the 47 minutes prior to this play, they were still in position to possibly win the game.  This one play negated the huge run that the Celts wasted their energy on previously.  It's rare that you can be down by 28 points and still be in this position, so it's not an opportunity that should be wasted.  Also, if you bring home the W after being down by 28, this would deflate the opposition's morale and shift the momentum entirely.

Obviously there were more problems than this one play, but I don't know how you can brush off poor decision-making in crunch time.  A championship team should have better situational awareness than this.

[Steve Weinman]

You know in the big scheme of things I dont really think this was a big deal. They didnt have a clear look.. Face it we had our chances all game.. even in the last few minutes we had some huge chances and didnt take advantage.. this was a last resort play and i dont think it really would have changed the outcome

Down 4.  Quick bucket. Down 1 or 2. Defense. Another bucket for the tie or win.

  When you were down by 28 and have a chance to either win the game or go into overtime, this shouldn't be ruined by foolish decision-making. 

Whoa.  Let's be clear on one thing: I've got a lot more of an issue with the "getting down by 28" business than I do with what transpired at the end. 

I don't know what the intricacies of the design were for the last 35 seconds.  I do know that the team played a disgusting brand of basketball for the first 28 minutes of this game.  Preventing that nonsense or anything like it from recurring is the primary issue.

While a 2-for-1 type of result would have been nice at the end, it was far from the biggest concern on Monday night.

-sw

Obviously there were more problems than this one play, but I don't know how you can brush off poor decision-making in crunch time.  A championship team should have better situational awareness than this.

Funny you phrase it like that, since I specifically dedicated a bullet in the Daily Babble game thoughts piece on Tuesday to say the following:

Not sure why the Celtics didn't even attempt to go two-for-one while trailing by four with 35 seconds to play.

Perhaps we're playing semantics here, since I've agreed that there was likely some mismanagement at the end.  My only complaint is that when we start talking about "ruining" chances to win - that's about playing a strong 48 minutes instead of an energetic but brainless 20 minutes.  If you play the whole game the right way - or at least a lot closer to it than the Celtics did on Monday - you give yourself a greater leeway for error so that the game doesn't end up coming down to something like clock management of a two-for-one down four with 35 seconds to play at the end.

-sw

[CoachBo]

You know in the big scheme of things I dont really think this was a big deal. They didnt have a clear look.. Face it we had our chances all game.. even in the last few minutes we had some huge chances and didnt take advantage.. this was a last resort play and i dont think it really would have changed the outcome

Down 4.  Quick bucket. Down 1 or 2. Defense. Another bucket for the tie or win.

  When you were down by 28 and have a chance to either win the game or go into overtime, this shouldn't be ruined by foolish decision-making. 

Whoa.  Let's be clear on one thing: I've got a lot more of an issue with the "getting down by 28" business than I do with what transpired at the end. 

I don't know what the intricacies of the design were for the last 35 seconds.  I do know that the team played a disgusting brand of basketball for the first 28 minutes of this game.  Preventing that nonsense or anything like it from recurring is the primary issue.

While a 2-for-1 type of result would have been nice at the end, it was far from the biggest concern on Monday night.

-sw

Nice, but not the primary focus. Good point, Steve. At that point in the game, I'm more concerned with maximizing my chances at two points than I am a 2-for-1. It'd be interesting to see the percentages on how often overfocusing on the 2-for-1 works, but I'm guessing they're not good.

I really tend to dislike the focus on the clock in that situation, rather than the quality of look.

[yagru]

lol you guys talk as if he passed up an open look.. he was being well defended and it looked to me he took the shot the first decent chance he got

Yes of course it was a 2 for 1 opp but I dont hold much weight in it considering all the other situations in the game we let pass by. If anything talk about Rondo throwing the ball of Allens leg on a fast break or Allen missing open bunnies.. Im not gonna fault pierce for not forcing a shot when on the backend of that play he makes a 3 with still some time left.

[Chris]

Why did Marbury never set foot on the court after the 2nd quarter? Doc drove the team into the ground with the replacements. He's so stupid sometimes with subbing methods.

I had a problem with the last play too, but Marbury not coming in during the second half was defensible.  They were in a huge hole, and at the time when Marbury would normally come in (around the quarters), Rondo was leading the charge back into the game.  I would have had a huge problem with Doc pulling Rondo (or Pierce for that matter), during that run. 


Now if the question is why wasn't Marbury in there instead of Tony, when Pierce got 3 fouls in the first half...well, that one I think is much less defensible.

[Reggie's Ghost]

Nice, but not the primary focus. Good point, Steve. At that point in the game, I'm more concerned with maximizing my chances at two points than I am a 2-for-1. It'd be interesting to see the percentages on how often overfocusing on the 2-for-1 works, but I'm guessing they're not good.

I really tend to dislike the focus on the clock in that situation, rather than the quality of look.

Yes, I'm not a proponent for heaving a desperation shot up, the clock is a huge factor here but people do miss free throws and it's worth getting a good look.

However, it's not that Pierce didn't rush, it's that he waited for 14 seconds to INITIATE THE PLAY, like we were in a 1 possession game.  If he tries to make something happen and the look isn't there then fine, kick it out, take a little bit more time and play the foul game, but to hold the ball on your hip at a moment like that makes it significantly harder.  I don't need to explain to you I'm sure, it's better to score and defend with a chance for a 3 second inbounds play to win or tie than it is to force a 3, foul and hope for a miss.

lol you guys talk as if he passed up an open look.. he was being well defended and it looked to me he took the shot the first decent chance he got

Yes of course it was a 2 for 1 opp but I dont hold much weight in it considering all the other situations in the game we let pass by. If anything talk about Rondo throwing the ball of Allens leg on a fast break or Allen missing open bunnies.. Im not gonna fault pierce for not forcing a shot when on the backend of that play he makes a 3 with still some time left.

Sure we can talk about that Rondo play if you want, good example.  He tried to kick it out for an open shot, pass wasn't on the money and it results in a turnover.  The idea was right, the pass was off, players make mistakes. 

Similarly, if Paul initiates the play immediately, and the result is a turnover, you live with that because players don't always succeed and it gave us the best shot at winning.  The only reason Paul didn't have a "decent shot" earlier is because he was inexplicably running down the clock...right?  You didn't see it that way?  I mean, the Magic weren't going to just give him an open look, you have to penetrate or put it on the floor asap to produce a decent look...

[yagru]

Sure we can talk about that Rondo play if you want, good example.  He tried to kick it out for an open shot, pass wasn't on the money and it results in a turnover.  The idea was right, the pass was off, players make mistakes. 

I disagree completely.. if you want to talk about "common sense".. its common sense to me in that situation to hold the ball and wait for a good look.. it was a critical juncture in the game off of a turnover that we needed to capitilize on.. instead we just gave the ball back on a terrible transition pass.. to me THAT is common sense

[Reggie's Ghost]

Sure we can talk about that Rondo play if you want, good example.  He tried to kick it out for an open shot, pass wasn't on the money and it results in a turnover.  The idea was right, the pass was off, players make mistakes. 

I disagree completely.. if you want to talk about "common sense".. its common sense to me in that situation to hold the ball and wait for a good look.. it was a critical juncture in the game off of a turnover that we needed to capitilize on.. instead we just gave the ball back on a terrible transition pass.. to me THAT is common sense

Well, it's not that I don't see your point, but in my mind they managed that furious comeback by pushing the ball off of turnovers, so I see why Rondo was trying to keep the ball moving.  Anyway, if the pass was anywhere near where it needed to be, it probably doesn't result in a turnover.  It's not like he dribbled it off his foot, he was correctly trying to hit an open guy once it was clear he'd overrun his teammates.

Anyway, I'm not defending that play, bad pass though it was, it wasn't coming off a timeout and a drawn up play by the coach, it was improvisational off of a forced Orlando turnover.  On the flip side, Paul holding the ball for 14 seconds at half-court is nonsensical in my eyes, and forced us into a must-foul situation even if he makes the basket (and he still didn't get a good look anyway, so much for "taking your time to find a decent look")