Why it was silly to panic

[celtics2]

There were some shocking refereeing calls.

I distinctly remember a no-call where rondo was decked by Duncan on a layup and parker sprinted up the other end and got a 3 point play in very similar circumstances.

As for the argument about the shooting efficiency, I'm fairly sure this team deserves being called better than a fluke considering they've been the most efficient team from attempts for quite a while. This team gets good open shots when rondo is playing well, and they made them tonight. No fluke involved.

Don't be shocked. NBA officiating is a disgrace at best. I rarely complain about the type of call but the equality of them. I think we get a lot of bad calls that reflect Tommy Heinsohn's exposing the worst officials. This is such a Stern failure. It's time for new NBA Leadership.

[Cinzilla]

Celtics Head Coach Doc Rivers post the Spurs game.

Tonight we just made shots, I mean let’s be honest. If you would have told them that we were going to take basically all jump-shots; we had about five post-ups the entire game, if you would have told them we were going to take all jump-shots and make them, they probably would have said, ‘I want to see them do that.’ We made the shots.

Fortunately, Doc wasn't delusional about what really happened.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/gameday/110331.html

[Drucci]

Doesn't change anything to the fact that we will win a lot of games in the playoffs because we shot crazy numbers on midrange jumpers. We will win other games in different ways and lose some because of a lack of made jumpers or for other reasons.

I just don't get why you think we can't win it all by relying for a lot of games on our midrange jumpers, we have done all season long and even in the playoffs last year so I tend to think our great shooting numbers are more an asset of our team than a fluke, the numbers are here to support that, it's part of our identity.

All season long (and years long actually) this simple equation has been proven right : 2 days of rest + focus from the C's = almost guaranteed 50% efficiency on midrange jumpers in an entire game. That's what you will get in the playoffs.

[BballTim]

Celtics Head Coach Doc Rivers post the Spurs game.

Tonight we just made shots, I mean let’s be honest. If you would have told them that we were going to take basically all jump-shots; we had about five post-ups the entire game, if you would have told them we were going to take all jump-shots and make them, they probably would have said, ‘I want to see them do that.’ We made the shots.

Fortunately, Doc wasn't delusional about what really happened.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/gameday/110331.html

  Nobody was delusional about what happened. They were hitting their jump shots so they kept taking them. If they'd have been missing them they wouldn't have taken so many. Pretty simple.

[Cinzilla]

For how long have you watching the NBA? Honest question, I'm genuinely curious. The idea that any team wins lots of playoff games by shooting cray numbers in long 2pt jumpers is extremely eccentric and unusual. There are lots of old axioms about that. It's simply not a winning strategy and never was. Why do you think that at the heart of the defensive schemes of the best defensive teams like Boston or Chicago is giving teams those shots?

Why do you think the Spurs, as Doc said, were completely okay with the Celtics shot selection? Do you think it's because the Celtics can consistently hit that kind of shots; or consistently win games with that sort of shot selection? Maybe you're clever than Popovich?

The Celtics shot 26-39 in jumpers outside 10ft in this game. 66%, not 50%. If they had shot 50%, gone 19-38 or something, they would have lost the game. And shooting 50% is still an incredibly high efficiency for 2pt shots out of the paint.

And you don't get 2 days rest before every playoff game, I don't know where you get that idea from. You get 1 or 2 depending on the schedule. Last season the Celtics played 24 playoff games and only in 9 they got 2 (or more) days of rest. And that includes the first game of every series. Plus, in the regular season you frequently play rested vs teams without rest, hence with less defensive energy. In the playoffs that doesn't happen, the defense will be rested too.

Last year, they went 245-632 in shots 10ft out in the playoffs. That's a 39% shooting efficiency, still pretty hight for that type of shot. This season they're hitting them at a 41% clip, enough to make them a top team in this type of shots.

And you think they'll win lots of games by shooting  66%?

Do you really believe that's a winning strategy?
 
Hey, but are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? To me it seems you're just too stubborn to admit you were wrong, but if you really believe in what you say you believe, I'm ready to bet $10K that they won't shoot above 50% in midrange jumpers for the playoffs.

Personally, I prefer to side with Doc Rivers and Popovich. Forcing the Celtics to shoot 66% on 2pt jumpers to win the game is a winning strategy.

[Cinzilla]

Celtics Head Coach Doc Rivers post the Spurs game.

Tonight we just made shots, I mean let’s be honest. If you would have told them that we were going to take basically all jump-shots; we had about five post-ups the entire game, if you would have told them we were going to take all jump-shots and make them, they probably would have said, ‘I want to see them do that.’ We made the shots.

Fortunately, Doc wasn't delusional about what really happened.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/gameday/110331.html

  Nobody was delusional about what happened. They were hitting their jump shots so they kept taking them. If they'd have been missing them they wouldn't have taken so many. Pretty simple.

That's actually beyond the point, but:

They still take almost 30 shots 10ft out per game.

They'd have won the game in Atlanta had they been equally efficient in 2pt jumpers - actually they'd have won the game by 11, not 10. Why didn't they just stop taking them and started getting other high-percentage shots? Maybe it's not really that simple?

Believing that you can win games by consistently shooting with that accuracy or anything near it is delusional. As they say, live by the jump-shot...

[BballTim]

Celtics Head Coach Doc Rivers post the Spurs game.

Tonight we just made shots, I mean let’s be honest. If you would have told them that we were going to take basically all jump-shots; we had about five post-ups the entire game, if you would have told them we were going to take all jump-shots and make them, they probably would have said, ‘I want to see them do that.’ We made the shots.

Fortunately, Doc wasn't delusional about what really happened.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/gameday/110331.html

  Nobody was delusional about what happened. They were hitting their jump shots so they kept taking them. If they'd have been missing them they wouldn't have taken so many. Pretty simple.

That's actually beyond the point, but:

They still take almost 30 shots 10ft out per game.

They'd have won the game in Atlanta had they been equally efficient in 2pt jumpers - actually they'd have won the game by 11, not 10. Why didn't they just stop taking them and started getting other high-percentage shots? Maybe it's not really that simple?

Believing that you can win games by consistently shooting with that accuracy or anything near it is delusional. As they say, live by the jump-shot...

  So the Atlanta loss was unrelated to back to back road games? And, really, not a soul is saying that they Celts will consistently shoot with that accuracy. Claiming that they are is, well, delusional.

  Again, start going over all of the Celts wins. In many if not most of them you'll find that they did something exceptionally well. Inside shooting, outside shooting, threes, rebounds, assists, turnovers, defense, whatever. You could tell everyone who will listen that they can't sustain whatever they happened to do well in that game and counting on them to do so would be delusional. Before you finish arguing your point they'll win another game a different way.

[Drucci]

For how long have you watching the NBA? Honest question, I'm genuinely curious. The idea that any team wins lots of playoff games by shooting cray numbers in long 2pt jumpers is extremely eccentric and unusual. There are lots of old axioms about that. It's simply not a winning strategy and never was. Why do you think that at the heart of the defensive schemes of the best defensive teams like Boston or Chicago is giving teams those shots?

Why do you think the Spurs, as Doc said, were completely okay with the Celtics shot selection? Do you think it's because the Celtics can consistently hit that kind of shots; or consistently win games with that sort of shot selection? Maybe you're clever than Popovich?

The Celtics shot 26-39 in jumpers outside 10ft in this game. 66%, not 50%. If they had shot 50%, gone 19-38 or something, they would have lost the game. And shooting 50% is still an incredibly high efficiency for 2pt shots out of the paint.

And you don't get 2 days rest before every playoff game, I don't know where you get that idea from. You get 1 or 2 depending on the schedule. Last season the Celtics played 24 playoff games and only in 9 they got 2 (or more) days of rest. And that includes the first game of every series. Plus, in the regular season you frequently play rested vs teams without rest, hence with less defensive energy. In the playoffs that doesn't happen, the defense will be rested too.

Last year, they went 245-632 in shots 10ft out in the playoffs. That's a 39% shooting efficiency, still pretty hight for that type of shot. This season they're hitting them at a 41% clip, enough to make them a top team in this type of shots.

And you think they'll win lots of games by shooting  66%?

Do you really believe that's a winning strategy?
 
Hey, but are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? To me it seems you're just too stubborn to admit you were wrong, but if you really believe in what you say you believe, I'm ready to bet $10K that they won't shoot above 50% in midrange jumpers for the playoffs.

Personally, I prefer to side with Doc Rivers and Popovich. Forcing the Celtics to shoot 66% on 2pt jumpers to win the game is a winning strategy.

I'm not saying they will shoot that well for most of the playoffs, I'm saying that they've proven time and time again that they shoot 50% or better for about 8 games out of 10. Meaning we can expect the same consistency in the playoffs provided we get 1 or 2 days of rest (2 is better but 1 does it for this team too), and we will.

The thing is, you're taking this specific game as if I chose it myself to say "look! we're going to shoot 66% or better in every game during the playoffs!". I just meant that the execution (and yes, making shots is part of execution and being well rested) and focus were off the charts in that game and it was not a coincidence. You can expect way better shooting percentages that we've seen lately in the playoffs and more smart plays.

Also, like another poster pointed it out, we took all these shots because we were making them. Why stop when it's working? Had we missed a lot of them our strategy would have changed so I really don't see your point. From what I see, you're taking this lone game as the basis of all our strategies in the playoffs. Of course it won't be, every game is different and the gameplan varies against each different opponent.

[Cinzilla]

Celtics Head Coach Doc Rivers post the Spurs game.

Tonight we just made shots, I mean let’s be honest. If you would have told them that we were going to take basically all jump-shots; we had about five post-ups the entire game, if you would have told them we were going to take all jump-shots and make them, they probably would have said, ‘I want to see them do that.’ We made the shots.

Fortunately, Doc wasn't delusional about what really happened.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/gameday/110331.html

  Nobody was delusional about what happened. They were hitting their jump shots so they kept taking them. If they'd have been missing them they wouldn't have taken so many. Pretty simple.

That's actually beyond the point, but:

They still take almost 30 shots 10ft out per game.

They'd have won the game in Atlanta had they been equally efficient in 2pt jumpers - actually they'd have won the game by 11, not 10. Why didn't they just stop taking them and started getting other high-percentage shots? Maybe it's not really that simple?

Believing that you can win games by consistently shooting with that accuracy or anything near it is delusional. As they say, live by the jump-shot...

  So the Atlanta loss was unrelated to back to back road games? And, really, not a soul is saying that they Celts will consistently shoot with that accuracy. Claiming that they are is, well, delusional.

  Again, start going over all of the Celts wins. In many if not most of them you'll find that they did something exceptionally well. Inside shooting, outside shooting, threes, rebounds, assists, turnovers, defense, whatever. You could tell everyone who will listen that they can't sustain whatever they happened to do well in that game and counting on them to do so would be delusional. Before you finish arguing your point they'll win another game a different way.

Yeah, that's my point, maybe you just didn't read my posts too well?

some ways of winning - sustainable

other ways of winning, like by shooting 66% in long jumpers - not sustainable

Not really that hard to understand.

[BballTim]

Celtics Head Coach Doc Rivers post the Spurs game.

Tonight we just made shots, I mean let’s be honest. If you would have told them that we were going to take basically all jump-shots; we had about five post-ups the entire game, if you would have told them we were going to take all jump-shots and make them, they probably would have said, ‘I want to see them do that.’ We made the shots.

Fortunately, Doc wasn't delusional about what really happened.

http://www.nba.com/spurs/gameday/110331.html

  Nobody was delusional about what happened. They were hitting their jump shots so they kept taking them. If they'd have been missing them they wouldn't have taken so many. Pretty simple.

That's actually beyond the point, but:

They still take almost 30 shots 10ft out per game.

They'd have won the game in Atlanta had they been equally efficient in 2pt jumpers - actually they'd have won the game by 11, not 10. Why didn't they just stop taking them and started getting other high-percentage shots? Maybe it's not really that simple?

Believing that you can win games by consistently shooting with that accuracy or anything near it is delusional. As they say, live by the jump-shot...

  So the Atlanta loss was unrelated to back to back road games? And, really, not a soul is saying that they Celts will consistently shoot with that accuracy. Claiming that they are is, well, delusional.

  Again, start going over all of the Celts wins. In many if not most of them you'll find that they did something exceptionally well. Inside shooting, outside shooting, threes, rebounds, assists, turnovers, defense, whatever. You could tell everyone who will listen that they can't sustain whatever they happened to do well in that game and counting on them to do so would be delusional. Before you finish arguing your point they'll win another game a different way.

Yeah, that's my point, maybe you just didn't read my posts too well?

some ways of winning - sustainable

other ways of winning, like by shooting 66% in long jumpers - not sustainable

Not really that hard to understand.

  More likely you didn't read my post well. Winning when you do at least one thing that is not sustainable is, in fact, sustainable.

  How many wins do you think we have where we didn't do anything that would be considered unsustainable?