Small Ball has no place in this league. Sorry "IT"

[BudweiserCeltic]

Not every team has a logjam of big guards like the Bucks do in both the PG and SG positions.

no, they don't. but when it comes down to it the goal is to win a championship, not a lot of games. and when it comes time for the playoffs this is what every team will do. "IT" is a waste of time.

That aside, that being the case, Stevens should never go small with IT as a PG particularly against a team like the Bucks and particularly with bad defenders on our front court to ago along with Thomas. We should have gone big throughout full game.

I agree that this was a bad game for Stevens. really questionable substitutions through out.

This is not on Ainge, this is on Stevens.

never said this loss is on Ainge. we can win games with "IT", we're not winning a championship with "IT" though. and yes this loss was on Stevens.

Plato would love today's NBA fan.  They're so obsessed with some fantasy of what the perfect team and perfect player looks like, they have no time for teams and players as they actually exist.

Mike

it has nothing to do with "perception". show me a team that has won championships in this era of the NBA playing small ball. or won championships where their best player is also the smallest player on the court.

Plenty of problems with your premise... the insinuation that the plan involves having Isaiah Thomas as our best player and secondly, that having Isaiah Thomas on the floor means that we're playing small ball, to say nothing of Isaiah Thomas being used off the bench.

[GreenWarrior]

Not every team has a logjam of big guards like the Bucks do in both the PG and SG positions.

no, they don't. but when it comes down to it the goal is to win a championship, not a lot of games. and when it comes time for the playoffs this is what every team will do. "IT" is a waste of time.

That aside, that being the case, Stevens should never go small with IT as a PG particularly against a team like the Bucks and particularly with bad defenders on our front court to ago along with Thomas. We should have gone big throughout full game.

I agree that this was a bad game for Stevens. really questionable substitutions through out.

This is not on Ainge, this is on Stevens.

never said this loss is on Ainge. we can win games with "IT", we're not winning a championship with "IT" though. and yes this loss was on Stevens.

Plato would love today's NBA fan.  They're so obsessed with some fantasy of what the perfect team and perfect player looks like, they have no time for teams and players as they actually exist.

Mike

it has nothing to do with "perception". show me a team that has won championships in this era of the NBA playing small ball. or won championships where their best player is also the smallest player on the court.

Plenty of problems with your premise... the insinuation that the plan involves having Isaiah Thomas as our best player and secondly, that having Isaiah Thomas on the floor means that we're playing small ball, to say nothing of Isaiah Thomas being used off the bench.

I was saying it in the frame of thought that "IT" in a "best case scenario" is our best player. not that I actually believe he is. he might be our best offensive player...maybe.

in general playing "IT" is playing "small ball" imo regardless of who is on the court with him at any given time. and regardless of weather he starts or comes off the bench the problem still remains that the D is still making up for his disadvantage.

[esel1000]

Not every team has a logjam of big guards like the Bucks do in both the PG and SG positions.

no, they don't. but when it comes down to it the goal is to win a championship, not a lot of games. and when it comes time for the playoffs this is what every team will do. "IT" is a waste of time.

That aside, that being the case, Stevens should never go small with IT as a PG particularly against a team like the Bucks and particularly with bad defenders on our front court to ago along with Thomas. We should have gone big throughout full game.

I agree that this was a bad game for Stevens. really questionable substitutions through out.

This is not on Ainge, this is on Stevens.

never said this loss is on Ainge. we can win games with "IT", we're not winning a championship with "IT" though. and yes this loss was on Stevens.

Plato would love today's NBA fan.  They're so obsessed with some fantasy of what the perfect team and perfect player looks like, they have no time for teams and players as they actually exist.

Mike

it has nothing to do with "perception". show me a team that has won championships in this era of the NBA playing small ball. or won championships where their best player is also the smallest player on the court.

Plenty of problems with your premise... the insinuation that the plan involves having Isaiah Thomas as our best player and secondly, that having Isaiah Thomas on the floor means that we're playing small ball, to say nothing of Isaiah Thomas being used off the bench.

I was saying it in the frame of thought that "IT" in a "best case scenario" is our best player. not that I actually believe he is. he might be our best offensive player...maybe.

in general playing "IT" is playing "small ball" imo regardless of who is on the court with him at any given time. and regardless of weather he starts or comes off the bench the problem still remains that the D is still making up for his disadvantage.

Guarantee you if we had a guy like DeAndre Jordan you would barely see IT's defensive limitations... problem is right now we have no one guarding the paint so our guards need to have above average d to supplement the fact that our bigs don't defend. Get a real rim protector and this thread wouldn't exist. IT isn't a problem, he was the reason we even came back last night

[GreenWarrior]

you can't guarantee the bigs overcoming "IT's" lack of size. it has yet to be proven. it has been proven that "small ball" doesn't win at this level though.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Spurs 1999

[Csfan1984]

I used to think like the OP last year. Now I think it's not an even split for IT vs opponents scoring on average. IT is efficient in scoring at very high level. If he had the height and D he is an All-star. He does give up a lot on D. Yet I won't say a team can never win a championship with him as a starter because if you pair him with good defensive bigs they would make up for the D. I agree it would be nice if this team had more size. However it's all about the size in the front court not  PG or SG. IT would be fine starting with Pelicans, Jazz, Blazers, Bulls, Grizzly and so on  with other "good front court teams".

exactly what I'm saying - breaking even isn't winning.

"IT" will have his nights where he's "on" for sure, i'm not denying he has talent offensively. I'm saying regardless of weather he's hot, average or cold the fact that he is a liability defensively(not for lack of effort) before he even steps off the bus is just that - a fact.

which means you are already giving something up before anyone even scores a basket. which means you already have to change your defense to make up of for this disadvantage. some nights this won't be so glaring because his offense will make it not seem like such a disadvantage...but it still is.

having elite bigs may make up for this, it may not. I tend to believe that's a myth based on nothing. realistically elite bigs will more likely end up with them in foul trouble having to make up for this disadvantage. 

I look at it this way. why not have elite bigs paired with no undersized players? so we can actually have an advantage and not have them have to make up for someone's lack of height.

DA has to take what he can get and he got scoring efficiently which is good at a cheap price. Getting a player that can do more requires more luck or assets. Look at Harden he is a very efficient scorer because he gets to the line. He gave up a ton of points last year to guys. This year he plays more focused on team + D and he is a MVP candidate. Efficient scoring and D isn't going to be easy to get. Thomas is a great addition given what he brings at his salary. Is he an All-star no but he isn't a below average player either. When he gets to the line he hurts the other teams D allowing the whole team's offense to potentially improve. Who else does that at all on the team right now? I hope Smart can grow to be a force to do so and expand his scoring. I also hope IT is successful as our six man gunner who helps maintain leads by just out scoring the other guys.

[GreenWarrior]

Spurs 1999

Celtics 2015

[BudweiserCeltic]

Spurs 1999

Celtics 2015

You're the one asking about examples about championship teams and the lack of proof that a team can overcome a short PG. Well there you go.

[Celtics4ever]

you can't guarantee the bigs overcoming "IT's" lack of size.

That is absurd, given two guys of equal talent  and skill they will also take the bigger player.  Size matters and it's been that way for a long time, too.  There have been great some great small guys but the odds are stacked against them.

We don't have legit size to play big ball folks, it is all we got.   We had Sully and Zeller earlier in the year and it did not cut it.   CBS is playing the cards he has been dealt.   Hopefully, during the off season and the draft we add some legit size.  A lot of teams have a 6-10 PF and a C that are athletic.   

[GreenWarrior]

Spurs 1999

Celtics 2015

You're the one asking about examples about championship teams and the lack of proof that a team can overcome a short PG. Well there you go.

yeah '99. Avery Johnson. 1999...

what about before that? or after that.

it's great that they had a team(in which avery had one of his best seasons btw) that could make up for his lack of size.

the point and theme here is the endeavor is not worth the time or effort.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Spurs 1999

Celtics 2015

You're the one asking about examples about championship teams and the lack of proof that a team can overcome a short PG. Well there you go.

yeah '99. Avery Johnson. 1999...

what about before that? or after that.

it's great that they had a team(in which avery had one of his best seasons btw) that could make up for his lack of size.

the point and theme here is the endeavor is not worth the time or effort.

That's what I'm finding currently with this discussion, you're going in circles.

[oldutican]

With 9-7. Without (while he was hurt) 5-3.

[ViolentGhandi]

IT wasnt really the big problem against the bucks

yes they went for that matchup but they were also hitting those 3s which are hard to defend even at bigger size. also on the drive they hit far too many of those scoop shots (with help of the backboard, shooting with the hand that is away from the defender). the C's didnt force the bucks to their off-hands in those situations and round about 75% of those shots had to be defended by the guy who had to switch on the ballhandler and we just don't have a rimprotector that can do enough to force them off that tactic.

Also everyone could see how the pressure the players put on themselfs affected their play - I mean the bucks played pretty good D but the C's also helped them turning the ball over several times needlessly.

hope we still can make it somehow as it dosn't make a difference pick wise if the BKN pick is lottery or the BOS one is but it makes a huge difference in terms of player development if BOS can reach the playoffs. I still hope for 8th seed to BOS and BKN at 9th as opposed to 7th/8th to BKN/BOS and 9th to MIA which could easily be happen if Wade is not comming back or not comming back in good enough shape.

will see.....

[fairweatherfan]

Did you forget we made the Finals and were one ACL away from winning with Nate Robinson as our first guard off the bench?

[LarBrd33]

He's a gimmicky inefficient player.  Like Nate Robinson and Earl Boykins, he can provide a spark off the bench for a mediocre team, but usually has no place on a contender.