Better without Ray?

[Eja117]

Because they were winning without him, then he touched the court and the team looked slow and lost.   Defense isn't outscoring your man.  

Correlation does not imply causation. Having Ray on the court did not suddenly make Pierce turn the ball over 7 times tonight.

I didn't watch the team closely enough tonight. If the team got slower and they had the ball in their hands longer, and Pierce had to work harder on D, and was more tired, then Ray's simple presence could possibly contribute to turnovers

[Bankshot]

Defense did not look good with Ray in the starting lineup, but this is just one game and it may be just a coincidence that it happened the night Ray returned.

[xhfjc36]

Can you back this up with feasible evidence? Ray Allen was +2 today when he played, which is the second best +/- outside of Wilcox. Not to mention, I can't think of how in any way 9-14 shooting with 4-6 downtown is in any way bad. Defensively? Well, their shooting guards collectively scored 7 points on 3-11 shooting. So yea.

It really bothers me how much people tend to overreact. People tend to come to the most absurd conclusions when we lose.

[mqtcelticsfan]

Defense did not look good with Ray in the starting lineup, but this is just one game and it may be just a coincidence that it happened the night Ray returned.

For the record, the defense gave up 88 points tonight. Giving up 88 points a game would mean we have just about the best defense in the NBA. Giving up 88 points in a non-lockout season would mean we have about the best defense in the last 10 years. Try to keep that in perspective.

[Eja117]

Can you back this up with feasible evidence? Ray Allen was +2 today when he played, which is the second best +/- outside of Wilcox. Not to mention, I can't think of how in any way 9-14 shooting with 4-6 downtown is in any way bad. Defensively? Well, their shooting guards collectively scored 7 points on 3-11 shooting. So yea.

It really bothers me how much people tend to overreact. People tend to come to the most absurd conclusions when we lose.

Is it feasible the team looked incredibly slow tonight and didn't before? Is that correlation  or causation? Or coincidence? Is it because he wears black shoes? Black shoes look slower on film

[green7]

let me recap this for you guys real quick.

1.raptors game -(easy team to beat) rondo's got injured - win
2.suns game - (not good atm) - slow offense & defense no ball movement what so ever - lost
3.wizards -(bad team but was on a 2 game win streak) the c's was leading by just one point till ray got hurt. then the lead went to 20,lose the 20 point lead but pierce went off! and the c's won by like 8 - win
4. magic game - (good team) arguably the celtics best game of the year.beating the magic by 31 killing them on defense and offense ball moved quickly etc,.
5.magic (part 2) - whooped the c's in the first half. but the c's owned them with the same formula from the first game in the 2nd half. - win
6. the pacers (great team) made the c's look like old men in the first 2 games,but in fridays game the celtics killed them on second chance points, scoring,defense whatever.- win
7.the cavs game (decent team) ray is back no enegry hardly any ball movement,defense was all right till the last few seconds ray had a good night when it came to scoring which he always does even in losing streaks but is his effort on defense there.- lose

i'm not saying ray is the reason for the loses but it makes me think. why is the team good without ray?

[xhfjc36]

Can you back this up with feasible evidence? Ray Allen was +2 today when he played, which is the second best +/- outside of Wilcox. Not to mention, I can't think of how in any way 9-14 shooting with 4-6 downtown is in any way bad. Defensively? Well, their shooting guards collectively scored 7 points on 3-11 shooting. So yea.

It really bothers me how much people tend to overreact. People tend to come to the most absurd conclusions when we lose.

Is it feasible the team looked incredibly slow tonight and didn't before? Is that correlation  or causation? Or coincidence? Is it because he wears black shoes? Black shoes look slower on film

Do you have any quantitative evidence that shows they're slower than before?

Even if they were, why would you automatically point to Ray? Correlation doesn't equal to causation.

[vinnie]

Ray wasn't guarding Kyrie Irving nor Anderson Verajao. Those two guys won the game for Cleveland.

[green7]

Ray wasn't guarding Kyrie Irving nor Anderson Verajao. Those two guys won the game for Cleveland.

doubt they would have won if we had the same roster from the past 4 games

[vinnie]

Ray wasn't guarding Kyrie Irving nor Anderson Verajao. Those two guys won the game for Cleveland.

doubt they would have won if we had the same roster from the past 2 games

Celts probably would have lost by more, given that Ray was the best offensive player on the floor tonight. People who think a starting backcourt of Avery Bradley and Sasha Pavlovic are going to get it done for more than a couple of games are completely wrong.

[Eja117]

Ray wasn't guarding Kyrie Irving nor Anderson Verajao. Those two guys won the game for Cleveland.

If he were guarding those guys do you think it would have been a lot different? When KG or Avery are exhausted from having defended those guys who will run down the court? Who will make their guy exhausted?

It was a track and jump meet. Is Ray the guy for that?

[mqtcelticsfan]

Ray wasn't guarding Kyrie Irving nor Anderson Verajao. Those two guys won the game for Cleveland.

doubt they would have won if we had the same roster from the past 2 games

I think I've figured it out. Having Ray Allen in the lineup caused Pietrus to miss his shots tonight. Coming off the bench screwed with his head so much that he missed those threes and we lost. Blame it all on Ray.

[Eja117]

The team went from dominating what everyone believes are good teams to losing at home to what everyone believes is a bad team.  Ray did a reverse Tebow tonight.

So if Ray was so good why did we lose?  If Ray was so great and helped us so much wouldn't we have crushed this team? 

I'm not buying the whole "Pierce and KG suddenly played horrid. It's all their fault" thing.

I think something changed. To me it was the team looking like they were stuck in cement. To me that's one too many 30 year olds.

It would also be fine to me if Pierce came off the bench in these track meet things, but Pierce is a little younger and better rebounder, but Ray stretches the floor.

I also think maybe we should have had more Moore. But something changed and those changes led to the loss and Ray was one of the changes.

[vinnie]

The team went from dominating what everyone believes are good teams to losing at home to what everyone believes is a bad team.  Ray did a reverse Tebow tonight.

So if Ray was so good why did we lose?  If Ray was so great and helped us so much wouldn't we have crushed this team? 

I'm not buying the whole "Pierce and KG suddenly played horrid. It's all their fault" thing.

I think something changed. To me it was the team looking like they were stuck in cement. To me that's one too many 30 year olds.

It would also be fine to me if Pierce came off the bench in these track meet things, but Pierce is a little younger and better rebounder, but Ray stretches the floor.

I also think maybe we should have had more Moore. But something changed and those changes led to the loss and Ray was one of the changes.

One thing -- It is clear that Orlando is not a good team
Second thing -- Indiana is a good team and that was a good win.
One more thing --- Pierce played well in spurts, but he had 7 turnovers trying to make crazy and hero passes all night

They lost because no one could guard Anderson Verajao or Kyrie Irving at the end of the game. They were up 10 points with 3 plus minutes left. They lost, because for some reason, Doc thought with 6 minutes left in the game he should play Sasha his first minutes of the game and then insert Stiemsma into the lineup. What sense does that make? Ray Allen (other than missing that bunny at the end) was not even slightly responsible for this loss tonight.

They had a 10 point lead and were cruising.

[Eja117]

The team went from dominating what everyone believes are good teams to losing at home to what everyone believes is a bad team.  Ray did a reverse Tebow tonight.

So if Ray was so good why did we lose?  If Ray was so great and helped us so much wouldn't we have crushed this team? 

I'm not buying the whole "Pierce and KG suddenly played horrid. It's all their fault" thing.

I think something changed. To me it was the team looking like they were stuck in cement. To me that's one too many 30 year olds.

It would also be fine to me if Pierce came off the bench in these track meet things, but Pierce is a little younger and better rebounder, but Ray stretches the floor.

I also think maybe we should have had more Moore. But something changed and those changes led to the loss and Ray was one of the changes.

One thing -- It is clear that Orlando is not a good team
Second thing -- Indiana is a good team and that was a good win.
One more thing --- Pierce played well in spurts, but he had 7 turnovers trying to make crazy and hero passes all night

They lost because no one could guard Anderson Verajao or Kyrie Irving at the end of the game. They were up 10 points with 3 plus minutes left. They lost, because for some reason, Doc thought with 6 minutes left in the game he should play Sasha his first minutes of the game and then insert Stiemsma into the lineup. What sense does that make? Ray Allen (other than missing that bunny at the end) was not even slightly responsible for this loss tonight.

They had a 10 point lead and were cruising.

Orlando is crud and Doc screwed up. I'm fine with that