Hawks (23-13) at Celtics (26-9) 1/11

[Donoghus]

Alright, that's about enough with the "tough in cheek" attitude going on.  There's clearly some frustration from the lose going on but there is a point where it crosses the line. No personal attacks.

Lastly, do not question posters "fanitude". 

Consider this a warning.

[scoop]

C's with 18 turnovers.
C's 3 point shot has disappeared in the second half.
C's can't defend Joe Johnson.
C's offense has gone south in the second half after a great first half.

Can't blame ANY of that on the refs...

C's shooting 10-17 from three.
C's continue to outrebound the Hawks
C's still playing severely undermanned.
C's still getting very little calls.


C's still leading.

The Hawks outrebounded the Celtics badly and they did it since early in the game.

No team can win a championship turning over the ball at this rate and being consistently outrebounded by pretty much everybody. At one point early in the 4th quarter, there was a 20 point differential in FG% and the Hawks were only down by 2 or 3 points. In the end the Celtics had a 10FG% advantage and still lost the game by 6. The difference out off points off turnovers alone was 17 points. Difficult to win consistently with this, even if you're much better putting the ball in the net and getting stops.

What game were you watching?

Celtics outrebounded the Hawks 35-30 in raw numbers. Did I miss something. Celtics rebounded nearly 80% of the misses on the defensive end tonight. That's a good number. They also rebounded over 54% of all the misses in the game which is also a good number.

Raw numbers are meaningless, that's just a consequence of the fact the Cs shot the ball better. We were outrebounded in rebounding % differential, which is what matters.

Rebounding percentage differential in one game? Please show me those numbers and what the heck you're talking about.

Yeps. The Celtics rebounded 78% of the misses in their glass and 12% of the misses in the Hawks board. So, the differential is 10% (the Hawks rebounded 22% and 88% respectively).

This is what matters because ceteris paribus (shooting, turnovers, fouls), the team that rebounds at a higher percentage will win the game. Why do you think we lose game where we consistently shoot much better than the opponent?

I can't explain any better than this, it's basketball 101.

[Change]

injury saved sheed.

If he had played, nothing less of an ejection for sheed. Count would've gone up to 13tech. 3 more suspension.

[JohnBagleyValueMeal]

if people think boston hasnt struggled in the third quarter of games this season then they havent been watching them

We're talking about THIS GAME, homey, and that's not what happened tonight.  If you want to talk about the fourth quarter tonight, fine, but then you'd actually have to make an argument based on evidence and not some pre-existing narrative you roll out whenever you feel like it.

get over yourself professor....tell me what was the boston lead to start the 3rd? what was it at the end? go back and look at the third quarters of philly, atlanta (all 3 times), GS, the Clippers....most of the games boston has lost this season there have given up big leads or had poor 3rd quarters...and what is your argument again? and who are you again?

Hrm...did we play Philly tonight?  Did we play Atlanta 3 times tonight?  Did we play Golden State tonight?

It's not my argument that the Celtics have OMG NEVER PLAYED A BAD THIRD QUARTER.  It's my argument that it wasn't what happened tonight (They started the 3rd with a 9 pt lead, ended with a 3, but considering the ft's and momentum that's not 'terrible,' as you claimed).  And guess what--lots of us have league pass and lots of us are perfectly willing to talk about what *actually happened* in a game.

It's also my argument that it's bogus to rehearse the same old claims about the team when the evidence doesn't stack up.  If you wanted to say the celtics lost because of their terrible turnovers, that's fine--there's evidence for that.  But you can't pin tonight on the third because that's not where the game was lost.  

I'm a dude who registered to yell at people who can't make a decent argument because I've been reading it all year from some of you chicken littles and I can't take it any longer.

[Redz]

Guys, please don't make this too personal. Keep it clean?

Yup. 

If we're going to get into a name calling fest we need to put a stop to it. 

Jadams, you've been taking a lot of shots in this thread, and til now have reacted responsibly.  A couple of the attacks you took are edging towards unacceptable too. 

Jadams, has an opinion and gives some points to back it up.  Feel free to refute it, but lets try to keep the name calling for elsewhere.

[scoop]

Rebounding percentage differential in one game? Please show me those numbers and what the heck you're talking about.

Here I was, thinking it was me.

Whuwhat indeed.

I hope you can understand the explanation.

[nickagneta]

if people think boston hasnt struggled in the third quarter of games this season then they havent been watching them

We're talking about THIS GAME, homey, and that's not what happened tonight.  If you want to talk about the fourth quarter tonight, fine, but then you'd actually have to make an argument based on evidence and not some pre-existing narrative you roll out whenever you feel like it.

get over yourself professor....tell me what was the boston lead to start the 3rd? what was it at the end? go back and look at the third quarters of philly, atlanta (all 3 times), GS, the Clippers....most of the games boston has lost this season there have given up big leads or had poor 3rd quarters...and what is your argument again? and who are you again?

Soooooooo....we're supposed to go undefeated??? Aren't most games decided by who comes out and plays the best in the third quarter? So most of the time when we come out of the locker room flat, we've lost.

I will agree though that I am not used to seeing it since over the last two years we have owned the third quarter but then again we've lost a ton of player games due to injury and that will take a toll.

By the way that game we lost after leading by 18(was that Golden State?) was the first time we lost when leading by 15 or more in 60 games in which we had gone up by 15 or more. We have since lost two other games when we had big leads since then. No one else sees the correlation of lots of important players being injured and the C's not holding large leads? Yes this is like the 4th time in recent times but we have been beat up pretty bad since before Christmas.

[celticinorlando]

if people think boston hasnt struggled in the third quarter of games this season then they havent been watching them

We're talking about THIS GAME, homey, and that's not what happened tonight.  If you want to talk about the fourth quarter tonight, fine, but then you'd actually have to make an argument based on evidence and not some pre-existing narrative you roll out whenever you feel like it.

get over yourself professor....tell me what was the boston lead to start the 3rd? what was it at the end? go back and look at the third quarters of philly, atlanta (all 3 times), GS, the Clippers....most of the games boston has lost this season there have given up big leads or had poor 3rd quarters...and what is your argument again? and who are you again?

Hrm...did we play Philly tonight?  Did we play Atlanta 3 times tonight?  Did we play Golden State tonight?

It's not my argument that the Celtics have OMG NEVER PLAYED A BAD THIRD QUARTER.  It's my argument that it wasn't what happened tonight (They started the 3rd with a 9 pt lead, ended with a 3, but considering the ft's and momentum that's not 'terrible,' as you claimed).  And guess what--lots of us have league pass and lots of us are perfectly willing to talk about what *actually happened* in a game.

It's also my argument that it's bogus to rehearse the same old claims about the team when the evidence doesn't stack up.  If you wanted to say the celtics lost because of their terrible turnovers, that's fine--there's evidence for that.  But you can't pin tonight on the third because that's not where the game was lost.  

I'm a dude who registered to yell at people who can't make a decent argument because I've been reading it all year from some of you chicken littles and I can't take it any longer.

it is called a trend...you have your opinion..i have mine.....

[kozlodoev]

I remember seeing Bibby and Evans. Did Tony or Eddie even see the court in the 2nd half? Ray and Paul need small breaks to stay fresh. The Hawks announcers could not believe how little Paul and Ray did in the 4th. Old players just can't log those type of minutes in back to backs. Ray logged 83+ minutes in the last two games. And Paul 75+ minutes in the last two games coming off minor knee surgery,

I don't think any other reserve but Glen Davis played in the second half.

Rondo has now played 40+ minutes in 4 or 5 straight games. I understand he's 23, but that's really pushing the envelope there.

[jadams5214]

if people think boston hasnt struggled in the third quarter of games this season then they havent been watching them

We're talking about THIS GAME, homey, and that's not what happened tonight.  If you want to talk about the fourth quarter tonight, fine, but then you'd actually have to make an argument based on evidence and not some pre-existing narrative you roll out whenever you feel like it.

get over yourself professor....tell me what was the boston lead to start the 3rd? what was it at the end? go back and look at the third quarters of philly, atlanta (all 3 times), GS, the Clippers....most of the games boston has lost this season there have given up big leads or had poor 3rd quarters...and what is your argument again? and who are you again?

Hrm...did we play Philly tonight?  Did we play Atlanta 3 times tonight?  Did we play Golden State tonight?

It's not my argument that the Celtics have OMG NEVER PLAYED A BAD THIRD QUARTER.  It's my argument that it wasn't what happened tonight (They started the 3rd with a 9 pt lead, ended with a 3, but considering the ft's and momentum that's not 'terrible,' as you claimed).  And guess what--lots of us have league pass and lots of us are perfectly willing to talk about what *actually happened* in a game.

It's also my argument that it's bogus to rehearse the same old claims about the team when the evidence doesn't stack up.  If you wanted to say the celtics lost because of their terrible turnovers, that's fine--there's evidence for that.  But you can't pin tonight on the third because that's not where the game was lost.  

I'm a dude who registered to yell at people who can't make a decent argument because I've been reading it all year from some of you chicken littles and I can't take it any longer.

The game was obviously lost in the 3rd quarter as evidenced by the C's shooting over 80% and losing 2/3 of their lead.  Doc and Hill overreacted on a legitimate flagrant foul could changing the momentum.  

Again those of us who constantly post about turnovers, blowing big leads, failing to execute down the stretch after "every" loss === that's because it's precisely what happens in most every loss that is the entire point ----...

Please stop the name calling - Redz

[Kiorrik]

Rebounding percentage differential in one game? Please show me those numbers and what the heck you're talking about.

Here I was, thinking it was me.

Whuwhat indeed.

I hope you can understand the explanation.

Yep, thanks, nice1. TP.

[celticinorlando]

i think we can agree on jamal crawford is just killing the celtics

[jadams5214]

Yeah the C's can't match up with big athletic 2 guards or combo guards.  Daniels coming back won't help much either I just don't think he is quick enough to handle those type of players.  C's need a wing defender/scorer in the Raja Bell/Shane Battier/Matt Barnes mold.

[nickagneta]

C's with 18 turnovers.
C's 3 point shot has disappeared in the second half.
C's can't defend Joe Johnson.
C's offense has gone south in the second half after a great first half.

Can't blame ANY of that on the refs...

C's shooting 10-17 from three.
C's continue to outrebound the Hawks
C's still playing severely undermanned.
C's still getting very little calls.


C's still leading.

The Hawks outrebounded the Celtics badly and they did it since early in the game.

No team can win a championship turning over the ball at this rate and being consistently outrebounded by pretty much everybody. At one point early in the 4th quarter, there was a 20 point differential in FG% and the Hawks were only down by 2 or 3 points. In the end the Celtics had a 10FG% advantage and still lost the game by 6. The difference out off points off turnovers alone was 17 points. Difficult to win consistently with this, even if you're much better putting the ball in the net and getting stops.

What game were you watching?

Celtics outrebounded the Hawks 35-30 in raw numbers. Did I miss something. Celtics rebounded nearly 80% of the misses on the defensive end tonight. That's a good number. They also rebounded over 54% of all the misses in the game which is also a good number.

Raw numbers are meaningless, that's just a consequence of the fact the Cs shot the ball better. We were outrebounded in rebounding % differential, which is what matters.

Rebounding percentage differential in one game? Please show me those numbers and what the heck you're talking about.

Yeps. The Celtics rebounded 78% of the misses in their glass and 12% of the misses in the Hawks board. So, the differential is 10% (the Hawks rebounded 22% and 88% respectively).

This is what matters because ceteris paribus (shooting, turnovers, fouls), the team that rebounds at a higher percentage will win the game. Why do you think we lose game where we consistently shoot much better than the opponent?

I can't explain any better than this, it's basketball 101.

First off, TP for explaining that.

Second, there is no way in the world that is basketball 101. It might be advanced basketball statistical metrics 305, but it is in no way whatsoever basketball 101.

Again, I think watching the game the C's were not dominated on the boards. Not even close. They did get dominated from the 6 minute mark on in the fourth and what you guys are doing is transferring what you last saw into the totality of the game. The C's, except for those late last 2 rebounds when the game was over down six with 24 seconds left, were ourebounded 7 to 2 from the 6 minute mark until those final seconds and had three team rebounds. It was the most important part of the game and the C's on the floor had no legs playing basically the entire second half on the back end of a back to back.

[Kiorrik]

First off, TP for explaining that.

Second, there is no way in the world that is basketball 101. It might be advanced basketball statistical metrics 305, but it is in no way whatsoever basketball 101.

TP for stating what I was thinking better than I could. I actually left the whole 101 part out because I couldn't quite make it into a solid line