chris sheridan of espn writes on celtics

[gustusias]

He points out several flaws of the team. I thought he was right on for the most part. Anyone agree here? We sure blow lot of scoring opportunities 'tween Sheed, Kevin, and Rondo's free throws plus poor outside shooting etc....yet we have the best fg % in thw lwague. Poor rebounding is another and that points directly at Sheed and Kevin's knee.

[Rida]

link?

[Atzar]

His last point about the team "not listening to Doc" is garbage, but the rest of it was accurate in my opinion.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=sheridan_chris&page=celtics-091122

[Redz]

link?

It's an ESPN insider article

[Atzar]

Nah, it's available to everybody - I'm not an Insider and I can see it.

[Redz]

Nah, it's available to everybody - I'm not an Insider and I can see it.

I suck 

[PosImpos]

I have to agree with everything in that article.

[nickagneta]

All pretty obvious stuff. KG isn't 200% but I think we all kinda figured he would be for a long time anyway.

Rondo can't shoot from three or shoot free throws....thanks for the newsflash.

Pierce and the rest of the team aren't listening to the coach...kinda been obvious for a while.

Sheed and Ray are in a shooting slump and neither are playing very good offensively.

Sheridan is a good NBA writer but he mailed this article in with a litany of stuff anyone who's been following the nBA and the Celtics didn't already know.

[scoop]

The last point is nonsensical.

He could have used better examples to illustrate the point about Rondo: him being a tremendous liability playing off-the-ball is the most evident one.

[Steve Weinman]

I have to agree with everything in that article.

I would co-sign except for his last bullet point regarding Doc.  The same thing happened last year, on multiple occasions I think, though there was at least one specific end-of-game basket that comes to mind - if memory serves, it was Ray's corner three to beat Philly on the road in February - where Doc said something similar after the game: that his players came to him in the huddle and asked that they run something else.  That sounds like a discussion between players and coach to me - the type of discussion that, from everything I read, Red Auerbach also encouraged his players to instigate as well (albeit perhaps more in practices than late-game spots, though I can't remember if his attitude about that was different in-game). 

A team that quits on his coach and goes out and ignores his play-calls on the floor is one thing.  This sounds like something considerably less problematic to me.

What irks me about the inclusion of this point in Sheridan's article is that I think he is right on in every other spot (namely his KG paragraph, as hero shot aside, KG was horrific today - about as bad as it got on the floor for the Celtics, and that may include the efforts of Mr. Wallace), so I really don't see the need of throwing in a stretch point at the end.  Why muddy up a piece that already includes several other good points?

-sw

[Junkyard Dawg]

Pierce and the rest of the team aren't listening to the coach...kinda been obvious for a while.

What's the evidence for this?  if this were true that would be a pretty big problem, in my opinion.

And with the players we have I can't imagine the rebounding problem is going to last all year.. KG will get back to form eventually (I think??)

[GKC]

My main problem was his offensive rebounding point. He says that nobody talks about how little the offensive rebounding and second chance points the Celtics get because they have the highest FG%.

He needs to know that those things are CORRELATED.

If you make the most shots, you obviously have less chances to GET an offensive rebound. Also, against many teams, NOT going for offensive rebounds make you better defensively. Popovich's advice to the Spurs when going against the Suns and the Nets in the playoffs was specifically to not attempt any offensive rebounds and run back on D.

But to prove my point on the offensive rebounding stat?

09-10 (to date): Celtics 1st in FG%, 29th in ORB
08-09: Suns 1st in FG%, 16th in ORB
07-08: Suns 1st in FG%, 30th in ORB
06-07: Suns 1st in FG%, 30th in ORB
05-06: Suns 1st in FG%, 30th in ORB

Now it may not be a correlation since these are just 2 teams, but it is mathematically obvious that better offensive teams have less ORB. In fact, there's a reason why teams have HIGHER ORB's than the Celtics; because they miss more shots.

When the Celtics give up more ORBs, I'm never worried if we made more shots. Because that makes sense. It's when give up offensive rebounds and shoot more poorly than our competition, that's when I worry.

[BballTim]

My main problem was his offensive rebounding point. He says that nobody talks about how little the offensive rebounding and second chance points the Celtics get because they have the highest FG%.

He needs to know that those things are CORRELATED.

If you make the most shots, you obviously have less chances to GET an offensive rebound. Also, against many teams, NOT going for offensive rebounds make you better defensively. Popovich's advice to the Spurs when going against the Suns and the Nets in the playoffs was specifically to not attempt any offensive rebounds and run back on D.

But to prove my point on the offensive rebounding stat?

09-10 (to date): Celtics 1st in FG%, 29th in ORB
08-09: Suns 1st in FG%, 16th in ORB
07-08: Suns 1st in FG%, 30th in ORB
06-07: Suns 1st in FG%, 30th in ORB
05-06: Suns 1st in FG%, 30th in ORB

Now it may not be a correlation since these are just 2 teams, but it is mathematically obvious that better offensive teams have less ORB. In fact, there's a reason why teams have HIGHER ORB's than the Celtics; because they miss more shots.

When the Celtics give up more ORBs, I'm never worried if we made more shots. Because that makes sense. It's when give up offensive rebounds and shoot more poorly than our competition, that's when I worry.

  More to the point Doc has the team get back on defense more than he has them crash the offensive glass.

[scoop]

I remember reading and hearing former Auerbach players, saying that one of the reasons many of them entered the coaching business was because Red used to encourage them to design plays and give input, even during games.

The Celtics are 26th in the league in ORB% - this has no relation with FG%, as its the percentage of available rebounding opportunities. For every 100 shots they miss, they only board 23.9 of them. The Hawks, for example, rebound 30 for each of their own 100 misses.

The correlation (an inverse one) exists between offensive rebounding and transition defence - if you're not crashing the glass with 2 or 3 guys, you have them available to get back quicker (that was always Popovich priority, especially when facing the Suns). However, the Celtics used to be able to do both at an acceptable level - last season they ranked 8th in ORB%. This season they aren't doing none of them well.

[PosImpos]

I have to agree with everything in that article.

I would co-sign except for his last bullet point regarding Doc.  The same thing happened last year, on multiple occasions I think, though there was at least one specific end-of-game basket that comes to mind - if memory serves, it was Ray's corner three to beat Philly on the road in February - where Doc said something similar after the game: that his players came to him in the huddle and asked that they run something else.  That sounds like a discussion between players and coach to me - the type of discussion that, from everything I read, Red Auerbach also encouraged his players to instigate as well (albeit perhaps more in practices than late-game spots, though I can't remember if his attitude about that was different in-game). 

A team that quits on his coach and goes out and ignores his play-calls on the floor is one thing.  This sounds like something considerably less problematic to me.

What irks me about the inclusion of this point in Sheridan's article is that I think he is right on in every other spot (namely his KG paragraph, as hero shot aside, KG was horrific today - about as bad as it got on the floor for the Celtics, and that may include the efforts of Mr. Wallace), so I really don't see the need of throwing in a stretch point at the end.  Why muddy up a piece that already includes several other good points?

-sw

I agree that his example for why the players aren't listening to Doc was weak at best.

On the other hand, I do agree that it seems as if the team isn't really listening to Doc.  Considering how the team has been playing lately, I have to assume either a) the team isn't listening to the things Doc tells them they need to work on or b) Doc is so inept that he hasn't been able to properly direct his team in doing things differently. 

I really don't think it's "b" because in recent interviews Doc has listed many things the team is doing wrong.  I can only conclude the team isn't really listening to him - at least not as much as they ought to.