I blame Game 4!

[P2]

I'm very anxious for tonight's Game 6, but quite honestly, this game shouldn't be played at all. The Magic are more than capable of winning this game, too, and I wouldn't bet against them in Game 7. With that said, Game 4 is to blame if we lose Game 6 and eventually Game 7. To me, they didn't give their best effort in that game, and I'm not talking about the whole game, but the last possession in particular.

Celtics, wake up, we're in the Eastern Conference Finals, you can't just get a rebound and go for the shot if you have a timeout left! You just can't! If they had taken the timeout and then missed, well, that would've just been bad luck on our part, but they just threw the possession away. They should've drawn up a play and at least tried! But hell no, Pierce ISO is what's popular these days.

I'm still very upset about that particular play, which, in my opinion, should have landed us in the Finals. So if we lose the series, blame it on the Game 4 end-of-game-non-effort.

[celticinorlando]

i blame game 3. they celtics thought that performance would be enough to win both games 3 and 4. they need to have the desperate mindset again

[P2]

i blame game 3. they celtics thought that performance would be enough to win both games 3 and 4. they need to have the desperate mindset again

They have it, but the Magic just outplayed them in Games 4 and 5. You can't win games with your mind alone.

[Roy Hobbs]

I didn't think Game 4 was a matter of effort, necessarily.  Rondo definitely looked timid, but was that because he got complacent, or because something was physically wrong with him?  I'd lean toward the latter.

[nickagneta]

I have no problem with the last play of regulation in game four. Orlando has an atrocious defensive lineup out there of Nelson-Redick-Carter-Bass-Gortat and had Carter on Pierce and no Howard to clog the lane. A timeout brings in Howard and Barnes and Pietrus. Probably Lewis too.

I like the chances of the C's scoring with no timeout and the lineup on the floor than to take a timeout and have to go against the Magics' best defenders. problem with that last play was Nelson completely played off Rondo in center court and Pierce didn't recognize that and pass off to the open man.

And, unfortunately, that is the razor's edge with Paul Pierce isos. Man the guy has ice water for blood and can hit those shots, maybe better than most anyone in the league. But his hubris in wanting to do it sometimes means he refuses to pass out of the iso and let someone else take that shot. Also, unfortunately, the competition knows this and often will double and triple team him into turnovers and bad shots. If Pierce passed more out of those situations, he might be the most dangerous finisher/closer in the game.

[Redz]

I didn't think Game 4 was a matter of effort, necessarily.  Rondo definitely looked timid, but was that because he got complacent, or because something was physically wrong with him?  I'd lean toward the latter.

I also think it's OK to give the opponent some credit for the last two games.

[Roy Hobbs]

And, unfortunately, that is the razor's edge with Paul Pierce isos. Man the guy has ice water for blood and can hit those shots, maybe better than most anyone in the league. But his hubris in wanting to do it sometimes means he refuses to pass out of the iso and let someone else take that shot. Also, unfortunately, the competition knows this and often will double and triple team him into turnovers and bad shots. If Pierce passed more out of those situations, he might be the most dangerous finisher/closer in the game.

I disagree with this assessment of Pierce.  In fact, 82games.com took a look at game winning shots a while back, and found that Paul led all players in assists on game winning shots:

Paul Pierce is an exception as he stands at the head of the class for 'game winning assists' with nine, ahead of Nash, Kidd, Billups, and the rest.

http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

That's through midway through last season, but I think it suggests that Paul is far from hindered by his hubris in those situations. 

[nickagneta]

And, unfortunately, that is the razor's edge with Paul Pierce isos. Man the guy has ice water for blood and can hit those shots, maybe better than most anyone in the league. But his hubris in wanting to do it sometimes means he refuses to pass out of the iso and let someone else take that shot. Also, unfortunately, the competition knows this and often will double and triple team him into turnovers and bad shots. If Pierce passed more out of those situations, he might be the most dangerous finisher/closer in the game.

I disagree with this assessment of Pierce.  In fact, 82games.com took a look at game winning shots a while back, and found that Paul led all players in assists on game winning shots:

Paul Pierce is an exception as he stands at the head of the class for 'game winning assists' with nine, ahead of Nash, Kidd, Billups, and the rest.

http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

That's through midway through last season, but I think it suggests that Paul is far from hindered by his hubris in those situations. 

All that proves Roy is that he has less hubris in those situations than others. It does not mean that if he did pass out of those situations more he wouldn't be even more deadly.

I mean, come on Roy 9 assists in 6 seasons and 5 post seasons? You aren't exactly talking about a passing machine here in these situations. And I am also talking about Pierce isos in general, especially at the end of quarters and halves and games. The amount of times where he misses shots or dribbles into turnovers or gets his shot blocked or gets nothing done is extraordinary.

[nickagneta]

I didn't think Game 4 was a matter of effort, necessarily.  Rondo definitely looked timid, but was that because he got complacent, or because something was physically wrong with him?  I'd lean toward the latter.

I also think it's OK to give the opponent some credit for the last two games.

What?

I thought it a Celticblog mandate that if you wanted to post here you had to have the belief that only the refs, Doc and bad Celtics play beat the Celtics.

Giving credit to the opponent? Huh? I'm not sure I understand?

 

[Roy Hobbs]

And, unfortunately, that is the razor's edge with Paul Pierce isos. Man the guy has ice water for blood and can hit those shots, maybe better than most anyone in the league. But his hubris in wanting to do it sometimes means he refuses to pass out of the iso and let someone else take that shot. Also, unfortunately, the competition knows this and often will double and triple team him into turnovers and bad shots. If Pierce passed more out of those situations, he might be the most dangerous finisher/closer in the game.

I disagree with this assessment of Pierce.  In fact, 82games.com took a look at game winning shots a while back, and found that Paul led all players in assists on game winning shots:

Paul Pierce is an exception as he stands at the head of the class for 'game winning assists' with nine, ahead of Nash, Kidd, Billups, and the rest.

http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

That's through midway through last season, but I think it suggests that Paul is far from hindered by his hubris in those situations. 

All that proves Roy is that he has less hubris in those situations than others. It does not mean that if he did pass out of those situations more he wouldn't be even more deadly.

I mean, come on Roy 9 assists in 6 seasons and 5 post seasons? You aren't exactly talking about a passing machine here in these situations. And I am also talking about Pierce isos in general, especially at the end of quarters and halves and games. The amount of times where he misses shots or dribbles into turnovers or gets his shot blocked or gets nothing done is extraordinary.

Maybe so, nick; one of the things I'd be very interested to see would be how effective the Celts are in end-of-quarter situations with Pierce handling the ball, versus Rondo or others.

However, in end-of-game situations, Pierce has been one of the very best.  Nine assists in six seasons may not sound like a lot, but how many potential game winners were there?  He's 11-for-32 on shots, has 9 assists (and who knows how many times he passed and his teammate missed), and is 15-for-17 from the free throw line.  Yet, he only has 3 turnovers.  I'd take stats like that over just about any other player in the league.

[LB3533]

I trust Paul at the end of quarters.

[Neurotic Guy]

In the interest of finding silver linings, it may play out that losing game 4 was a benefit in the long run.  I may get grief for this, but I think too much rest might not be a good thing for the Celtics.  Had they won on Monday, the C's would have had from May 24th to June 3 without playing a competitive game.  I understand that this is old team and rest is great, but I believe that there are diminishing returns with too much rest.  This gut check they are experiencing tonight followed by 5 full days of rest seems perfect to me.  But tonight is so important. It's one of those games that I almost don't want to watch because I am so anxious.  Think about it though -- if the C's do get by Orlando tonight, they will have gotten through a real hurdle together and that can only help their Ubuntu and psyche heading into The Finals.

[Roy Hobbs]

In the interest of finding silver linings, it may play out that losing game 4 was a benefit in the long run.  I may get grief for this, but I think too much rest might not be a good thing for the Celtics.  Had they won on Monday, the C's would have had from May 24th to June 3 without playing a competitive game.  I understand that this is old team and rest is great, but I believe that there are diminishing returns with too much rest.  This gut check they are experiencing tonight followed by 5 full days of rest seems perfect to me.  But tonight is so important. It's one of those games that I almost don't want to watch because I am so anxious.  Think about it though -- if the C's do get by Orlando tonight, they will have gotten through a real hurdle together and that can only help their Ubuntu and psyche heading into The Finals.

I don't know.  If we'd won Game 4:

1.  Rasheed, BBD, Daniels, and probably Tony (and maybe Rondo) would be healthier;

2.  Perk would have one less technical;

3.  There would be less wear-and-tear on all of our guys;

4.  We'd have (arguably) more momentum and confidence going into the Finals.

I think those four factors all outweigh whatever potential rust we would have picked up by having a long layoff.  The only benefit of having a Game 6, in my mind, is that Wyc earns more money, which he'll hopefully reinvest into the team.

[Neurotic Guy]

In the interest of finding silver linings, it may play out that losing game 4 was a benefit in the long run.  I may get grief for this, but I think too much rest might not be a good thing for the Celtics.  Had they won on Monday, the C's would have had from May 24th to June 3 without playing a competitive game.  I understand that this is old team and rest is great, but I believe that there are diminishing returns with too much rest.  This gut check they are experiencing tonight followed by 5 full days of rest seems perfect to me.  But tonight is so important. It's one of those games that I almost don't want to watch because I am so anxious.  Think about it though -- if the C's do get by Orlando tonight, they will have gotten through a real hurdle together and that can only help their Ubuntu and psyche heading into The Finals.

I don't know.  If we'd won Game 4:

1.  Rasheed, BBD, Daniels, and probably Tony (and maybe Rondo) would be healthier;

2.  Perk would have one less technical;

3.  There would be less wear-and-tear on all of our guys;

4.  We'd have (arguably) more momentum and confidence going into the Finals.

I think those four factors all outweigh whatever potential rust we would have picked up by having a long layoff.  The only benefit of having a Game 6, in my mind, is that Wyc earns more money, which he'll hopefully reinvest into the team.

Roy -- stop raining on my rationalization parade with logic! 

[nickagneta]

And, unfortunately, that is the razor's edge with Paul Pierce isos. Man the guy has ice water for blood and can hit those shots, maybe better than most anyone in the league. But his hubris in wanting to do it sometimes means he refuses to pass out of the iso and let someone else take that shot. Also, unfortunately, the competition knows this and often will double and triple team him into turnovers and bad shots. If Pierce passed more out of those situations, he might be the most dangerous finisher/closer in the game.

I disagree with this assessment of Pierce.  In fact, 82games.com took a look at game winning shots a while back, and found that Paul led all players in assists on game winning shots:

Paul Pierce is an exception as he stands at the head of the class for 'game winning assists' with nine, ahead of Nash, Kidd, Billups, and the rest.

http://www.82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm

That's through midway through last season, but I think it suggests that Paul is far from hindered by his hubris in those situations. 

All that proves Roy is that he has less hubris in those situations than others. It does not mean that if he did pass out of those situations more he wouldn't be even more deadly.

I mean, come on Roy 9 assists in 6 seasons and 5 post seasons? You aren't exactly talking about a passing machine here in these situations. And I am also talking about Pierce isos in general, especially at the end of quarters and halves and games. The amount of times where he misses shots or dribbles into turnovers or gets his shot blocked or gets nothing done is extraordinary.

Maybe so, nick; one of the things I'd be very interested to see would be how effective the Celts are in end-of-quarter situations with Pierce handling the ball, versus Rondo or others.

However, in end-of-game situations, Pierce has been one of the very best.  Nine assists in six seasons may not sound like a lot, but how many potential game winners were there?  He's 11-for-32 on shots, has 9 assists (and who knows how many times he passed and his teammate missed), and is 15-for-17 from the free throw line.  Yet, he only has 3 turnovers.  I'd take stats like that over just about any other player in the league.

I'm not questioning his effectiveness for the end of game data taken. I actually think he's been tremendous in that regard and really, for most of that time, who the heck did you want him passing to to take the shot? Yikes you're talking about 4 of those six years being pre-Big Three. If we won a game in that time it was more than likely because of Pierce.

But over the last three seasons  his efficiency at end of quarter, half and game plays in iso situations just has seemed  awful and I have to think that Doc thought so as well as he has taken the ball out of Pierce's hands in most of those situations now, with the exception of end of gamers, and given it to Rondo.