Simmons/Windhorst Podcast

[LarBrd33]

Him developing into a "rich man's Tony Allen" seems pretty fair, imo.

I'd like to point out again that Tony Allen has been the 3rd or 4th best player for significant stretches for one of the better teams in the league ever since joining Memphis.

If Tony Allen could shoot as well as Marcus Smart shot in his rookie season he'd arguably be one of the more valuable wing players in the league.

The challenge for Marcus will be improving as an inside finisher, because that's the area in which TA is far superior to him.

This is a very good post and I agree with it.

I get that Smart, while not a good three point shooter, was a better three point shooter than Tony Allen as a rookie.  But can someone explain why the general consensus is that Marcus Smart is a superior offensive player to Tony Allen? 


Smart as a rookie (in 27mpg):  7.8 points, .367/.335/.646 ... TS% of .491  - Per-36 of 10.4 points
Allen as a rookie (in 16mpg):  6.4 points,  .475/.387/.737 ... TS% of .542 - Per-36 of 14 points


Allen in College averaged 15.6 points with 48%/35%/66% shooting
Smart in College averaged 16.6 points with 41%/29%/75% shooting

Couldn't it be argued that Allen was a superior offensive player?   And despite this, Simmons was generous in claiming that Marcus Smart could develop into a "rich man's Tony Allen".   Nobody is bashing Tony Allen in this.  Allen is a nice role player.  A rice man's Tony Allen would be a good role player too.   But that's not a star.  And it doesn't negate the fact that currently, Smart is a homeless man's Tony Allen and a homeless man's Tony Allen wouldn't start for any of the top 9 teams in the playoffs. 

[kraidstar]

I agree that the Celtics lack talent and overachieved.

I entirely disagree, however, that the Cavs were bored most of the time and played with an "enormous" margin of error.  It seemed like the Cavs hit every big shot when they needed to, got calls from the refs down the stretch (in the first two games, at least), and still weren't blowing the Cetlcis out of the water.  A missed shot by the Cavs here, an open make for the Celtics there, along with even officiating down the stretch, and the Celtics may have pulled out a game or two. 

I also got the sense that the Cavs were playing all-out the entire series; it just never seemed like they were coasting.  I wouldn't call that an "enormous" margin of error.

TP

the idea that the cavs were "bored" is absurd.

Lots of people watched that series and independently came to the same conclusion.  In one of the broadcasts they summed it up appropriately:   "The Cavs are the cat.  Boston is the ball of yarn".   

I fully understand why some of my fellow Celtic fans get upset and defensive when they see comments like that.  They don't like hearing anyone discredit our boys.   But it is what it is, man.  The Cavs were in complete control of that series.  Any time Boston made a little run, the Cavs would up their effort and keep us at arm's length.  There was pretty much always a three possession buffer.   Great that Boston kept three of the games to 8 points, but 8 points against that team might as well been 25.   THe idea that we could have stopped them 4 straight possessions and score 4 straight times while they were giving it their full effort was pretty unlikely. 

The 2nd quarters of all four games were all great examples of this.  They obviously made a concerted effort to finish the half strong:

Game 1:  Tied with 5:48 left.   Cavs finish quarter up 8.
Game 2:  Celtics up 9 with 4:37 left.   Cavs finish quarter up 1.
Game 3:  1 point game with 1:10 left.  Cavs finish quarter up 8.
Game 4:  Cavs up 11 with 3:30 left.  Cavs finish quarter up 21. 


LeBron coasted through much of those games, but he could score on us at will.  There was a point in Game 4 where they pointed out LeBron hadn't gotten to the line for most of the second half.  That's a sign of someone not being aggressive.  Then he promptly coasted in for an easy layup.    We didn't get Cleveland's best effort in that series, because they clearly didn't need to give their best effort.   I didn't see a sense of urgency from the Cavs.  I didn't see any concern.  LeBron looked relaxed.  There were smiles.  The talentless Boston squad worked their tail off, but as Windhorst pointed out, the Cavs still had the capacity to sweep us with C-level performances.

viewers came to that "bored" notion, because, as i said, they personally didn't think the c's had a good chance. it's called "projecting." pro athletes don't get bored in postseason games. i can't imagine a real winner not being fully engaged. kobe, bird, jordan, magic, russell, all of them had razor-sharp focus.

i would agree that lebron tries to exude an air of flippancy - but i'd argue this is a side-effect of his deeper cowardice; he deliberately tries to act disengaged because he's secretly afraid of failure. and he also knows the refs have his back.
just my opinion of course.

[LarBrd33]

I agree that the Celtics lack talent and overachieved.

I entirely disagree, however, that the Cavs were bored most of the time and played with an "enormous" margin of error.  It seemed like the Cavs hit every big shot when they needed to, got calls from the refs down the stretch (in the first two games, at least), and still weren't blowing the Cetlcis out of the water.  A missed shot by the Cavs here, an open make for the Celtics there, along with even officiating down the stretch, and the Celtics may have pulled out a game or two. 

I also got the sense that the Cavs were playing all-out the entire series; it just never seemed like they were coasting.  I wouldn't call that an "enormous" margin of error.

TP

the idea that the cavs were "bored" is absurd.

Lots of people watched that series and independently came to the same conclusion.  In one of the broadcasts they summed it up appropriately:   "The Cavs are the cat.  Boston is the ball of yarn".   

I fully understand why some of my fellow Celtic fans get upset and defensive when they see comments like that.  They don't like hearing anyone discredit our boys.   But it is what it is, man.  The Cavs were in complete control of that series.  Any time Boston made a little run, the Cavs would up their effort and keep us at arm's length.  There was pretty much always a three possession buffer.   Great that Boston kept three of the games to 8 points, but 8 points against that team might as well been 25.   THe idea that we could have stopped them 4 straight possessions and score 4 straight times while they were giving it their full effort was pretty unlikely. 

The 2nd quarters of all four games were all great examples of this.  They obviously made a concerted effort to finish the half strong:

Game 1:  Tied with 5:48 left.   Cavs finish quarter up 8.
Game 2:  Celtics up 9 with 4:37 left.   Cavs finish quarter up 1.
Game 3:  1 point game with 1:10 left.  Cavs finish quarter up 8.
Game 4:  Cavs up 11 with 3:30 left.  Cavs finish quarter up 21. 


LeBron coasted through much of those games, but he could score on us at will.  There was a point in Game 4 where they pointed out LeBron hadn't gotten to the line for most of the second half.  That's a sign of someone not being aggressive.  Then he promptly coasted in for an easy layup.    We didn't get Cleveland's best effort in that series, because they clearly didn't need to give their best effort.   I didn't see a sense of urgency from the Cavs.  I didn't see any concern.  LeBron looked relaxed.  There were smiles.  The talentless Boston squad worked their tail off, but as Windhorst pointed out, the Cavs still had the capacity to sweep us with C-level performances.

viewers came to that "bored" notion, because, as i said, they personally didn't think the c's had a good chance. it's called "projecting."

That's not at all why I, or anyone else watching the games, came to that conclusion.  More to do with body language, a visible difference in effort, a visible difference in how the Cavs played at certain points in the game.   When LeBron is shugging his shoulders and smiling for most of the game, winking at his coaches and saying, "Heh... we got this"... then only deciding to use his finishing moves when absolutely necessary, it's a clear sign that they were dogging it at times. 

Anyone who watched the Cavs closely this season and saw how LeBron used entire weeks of the season as lessons for his young teammates, can see when LeBron is locked in trying to win, and coasting along giving his teammates some "playoff reps" in a low-stakes sparring session sweep.    We got practice-mode Cavs in that series. 

And who can blame them?  What's the point in going full-tilt and blowing out Boston by 50 when they can just cruise control to 4 possession victories?  They have a chance to go deep into these playoffs.   LeBron knows he needs to pace himself.   

[Rondo9]

Yeah which is why Lebron and Kyrie played over 40 minutes and did not blow out the Celtics. 

[Rondo9]

Him developing into a "rich man's Tony Allen" seems pretty fair, imo.

I'd like to point out again that Tony Allen has been the 3rd or 4th best player for significant stretches for one of the better teams in the league ever since joining Memphis.

If Tony Allen could shoot as well as Marcus Smart shot in his rookie season he'd arguably be one of the more valuable wing players in the league.

The challenge for Marcus will be improving as an inside finisher, because that's the area in which TA is far superior to him.

This is a very good post and I agree with it.

I get that Smart, while not a good three point shooter, was a better three point shooter than Tony Allen as a rookie.  But can someone explain why the general consensus is that Marcus Smart is a superior offensive player to Tony Allen? 


Smart as a rookie (in 27mpg):  7.8 points, .367/.335/.646 ... TS% of .491  - Per-36 of 10.4 points
Allen as a rookie (in 16mpg):  6.4 points,  .475/.387/.737 ... TS% of .542 - Per-36 of 14 points


Allen in College averaged 15.6 points with 48%/35%/66% shooting
Smart in College averaged 16.6 points with 41%/29%/75% shooting

Couldn't it be argued that Allen was a superior offensive player?   And despite this, Simmons was generous in claiming that Marcus Smart could develop into a "rich man's Tony Allen".   Nobody is bashing Tony Allen in this.  Allen is a nice role player.  A rice man's Tony Allen would be a good role player too.   But that's not a star.  And it doesn't negate the fact that currently, Smart is a homeless man's Tony Allen and a homeless man's Tony Allen wouldn't start for any of the top 9 teams in the playoffs.

I don't understand why you're down on Smart considering he hit more threes in his rookie year than Allen did in any of his years. Smart has a lot more room to grow.

[Evantime34]

I agree that the Celtics lack talent and overachieved.

I entirely disagree, however, that the Cavs were bored most of the time and played with an "enormous" margin of error.  It seemed like the Cavs hit every big shot when they needed to, got calls from the refs down the stretch (in the first two games, at least), and still weren't blowing the Cetlcis out of the water.  A missed shot by the Cavs here, an open make for the Celtics there, along with even officiating down the stretch, and the Celtics may have pulled out a game or two. 

I also got the sense that the Cavs were playing all-out the entire series; it just never seemed like they were coasting.  I wouldn't call that an "enormous" margin of error.

TP

the idea that the cavs were "bored" is absurd.

Lots of people watched that series and independently came to the same conclusion.  In one of the broadcasts they summed it up appropriately:   "The Cavs are the cat.  Boston is the ball of yarn".   

I fully understand why some of my fellow Celtic fans get upset and defensive when they see comments like that.  They don't like hearing anyone discredit our boys.   But it is what it is, man.  The Cavs were in complete control of that series.  Any time Boston made a little run, the Cavs would up their effort and keep us at arm's length.  There was pretty much always a three possession buffer.   Great that Boston kept three of the games to 8 points, but 8 points against that team might as well been 25.   THe idea that we could have stopped them 4 straight possessions and score 4 straight times while they were giving it their full effort was pretty unlikely. 

The 2nd quarters of all four games were all great examples of this.  They obviously made a concerted effort to finish the half strong:

Game 1:  Tied with 5:48 left.   Cavs finish quarter up 8.
Game 2:  Celtics up 9 with 4:37 left.   Cavs finish quarter up 1.
Game 3:  1 point game with 1:10 left.  Cavs finish quarter up 8.
Game 4:  Cavs up 11 with 3:30 left.  Cavs finish quarter up 21. 


LeBron coasted through much of those games, but he could score on us at will.  There was a point in Game 4 where they pointed out LeBron hadn't gotten to the line for most of the second half.  That's a sign of someone not being aggressive.  Then he promptly coasted in for an easy layup.    We didn't get Cleveland's best effort in that series, because they clearly didn't need to give their best effort.   I didn't see a sense of urgency from the Cavs.  I didn't see any concern.  LeBron looked relaxed.  There were smiles.  The talentless Boston squad worked their tail off, but as Windhorst pointed out, the Cavs still had the capacity to sweep us with C-level performances.

viewers came to that "bored" notion, because, as i said, they personally didn't think the c's had a good chance. it's called "projecting."

That's not at all why I, or anyone else watching the games, came to that conclusion. 

Unless you are omniscient I'm not sure you can presume to know conclusions anyone else draw or why they came to those conclusions.

You can say you thought they looked bored and you have read that others did, but presuming to know what "anyone else" watching the game thought is pretty ridiculous.

[D.o.s.]

Him developing into a "rich man's Tony Allen" seems pretty fair, imo.

I'd like to point out again that Tony Allen has been the 3rd or 4th best player for significant stretches for one of the better teams in the league ever since joining Memphis.

If Tony Allen could shoot as well as Marcus Smart shot in his rookie season he'd arguably be one of the more valuable wing players in the league.

The challenge for Marcus will be improving as an inside finisher, because that's the area in which TA is far superior to him.

This is a very good post and I agree with it.

I get that Smart, while not a good three point shooter, was a better three point shooter than Tony Allen as a rookie.  But can someone explain why the general consensus is that Marcus Smart is a superior offensive player to Tony Allen? 


Smart as a rookie (in 27mpg):  7.8 points, .367/.335/.646 ... TS% of .491  - Per-36 of 10.4 points
Allen as a rookie (in 16mpg):  6.4 points,  .475/.387/.737 ... TS% of .542 - Per-36 of 14 points


Allen in College averaged 15.6 points with 48%/35%/66% shooting
Smart in College averaged 16.6 points with 41%/29%/75% shooting

Couldn't it be argued that Allen was a superior offensive player?   And despite this, Simmons was generous in claiming that Marcus Smart could develop into a "rich man's Tony Allen".   Nobody is bashing Tony Allen in this.  Allen is a nice role player.  A rice man's Tony Allen would be a good role player too.   But that's not a star.  And it doesn't negate the fact that currently, Smart is a homeless man's Tony Allen and a homeless man's Tony Allen wouldn't start for any of the top 9 teams in the playoffs.

Totally agree -- I actually think TA is one of the most underrated Celtics alumni on this blog, and tbh I don't think Smart will ever be the kind of disruptive defensive force that Allen is, simply because I don't think he's big enough to feasibly guard a Kevin Durant or a Carmelo Anthony.

However, the greater offensive talent bit seems to me a result of the fact that Marcus's shooting touch is simply bad, while Allen's simply didn't exist in 2005. Can you remember that dude ever taking a jump shot rather than driving to the rim? I can't, but that was 10 years ago and my memory is pretty crappy.


relatedly:

I do think that there was a little bit of projection and groupthink going on in the "Cleveland is coasting" discussion (on broadcast and online), but I also don't believe that the Cavs ever thought they would seriously drop one game to us, let alone have the series ever be 'on the line' for them.

[aingeforthree]

Him developing into a "rich man's Tony Allen" seems pretty fair, imo.

I'd like to point out again that Tony Allen has been the 3rd or 4th best player for significant stretches for one of the better teams in the league ever since joining Memphis.

If Tony Allen could shoot as well as Marcus Smart shot in his rookie season he'd arguably be one of the more valuable wing players in the league.

The challenge for Marcus will be improving as an inside finisher, because that's the area in which TA is far superior to him.

This is a very good post and I agree with it.

I get that Smart, while not a good three point shooter, was a better three point shooter than Tony Allen as a rookie.  But can someone explain why the general consensus is that Marcus Smart is a superior offensive player to Tony Allen? 


Smart as a rookie (in 27mpg):  7.8 points, .367/.335/.646 ... TS% of .491  - Per-36 of 10.4 points
Allen as a rookie (in 16mpg):  6.4 points,  .475/.387/.737 ... TS% of .542 - Per-36 of 14 points


Allen in College averaged 15.6 points with 48%/35%/66% shooting
Smart in College averaged 16.6 points with 41%/29%/75% shooting

Couldn't it be argued that Allen was a superior offensive player?   And despite this, Simmons was generous in claiming that Marcus Smart could develop into a "rich man's Tony Allen".   Nobody is bashing Tony Allen in this.  Allen is a nice role player.  A rice man's Tony Allen would be a good role player too.   But that's not a star.  And it doesn't negate the fact that currently, Smart is a homeless man's Tony Allen and a homeless man's Tony Allen wouldn't start for any of the top 9 teams in the playoffs.

I find it a tough comparison because didn't TA come out at 23, 24 years old ?  Smart was what, 20 ?

Smart should still be in college learning and growing.  Instead, he's doing it at the NBA level.  So he could easily be far better than TA when its all said and done.  Tough to tell at this point.  He's got a long way to go and at 21, the sky is the limit.  So he could easily grow into 'star' status.

[Casperian]

And I am not saying trade to tank.  I am saying trade some of the depth potential for a star potential.  Multiple players for one player.  Consolidate the talent currently and use the multitude of draft picks to refill the depth.

Of course, this is pretty hard to do.  In the NBA quality almost always trumps quantity, so it's hard to trade the latter for the former.

The exception is when a team can't afford to keep all of its current talent, a star player soon to hit free agency is disgruntled or too old for a team's core, or a team is too top-heavy and needs to add depth in order to succeed with its two or three main guys.

All of this happens often enough. In fact, it's more likely the team which loses their star player will receive quantity instead of equal quality.

Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Deron Williams, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, etc. etc.

In none of these cases did their old team get equal value in return.

Trades where two teams simply swap "star" players are probably the rarest kind of trades in the NBA. Quality trumps quantity, but a star's desire trumps a team's need.

[LarBrd33]

I agree that the Celtics lack talent and overachieved.

I entirely disagree, however, that the Cavs were bored most of the time and played with an "enormous" margin of error.  It seemed like the Cavs hit every big shot when they needed to, got calls from the refs down the stretch (in the first two games, at least), and still weren't blowing the Cetlcis out of the water.  A missed shot by the Cavs here, an open make for the Celtics there, along with even officiating down the stretch, and the Celtics may have pulled out a game or two. 

I also got the sense that the Cavs were playing all-out the entire series; it just never seemed like they were coasting.  I wouldn't call that an "enormous" margin of error.

TP

the idea that the cavs were "bored" is absurd.

Lots of people watched that series and independently came to the same conclusion.  In one of the broadcasts they summed it up appropriately:   "The Cavs are the cat.  Boston is the ball of yarn".   

I fully understand why some of my fellow Celtic fans get upset and defensive when they see comments like that.  They don't like hearing anyone discredit our boys.   But it is what it is, man.  The Cavs were in complete control of that series.  Any time Boston made a little run, the Cavs would up their effort and keep us at arm's length.  There was pretty much always a three possession buffer.   Great that Boston kept three of the games to 8 points, but 8 points against that team might as well been 25.   THe idea that we could have stopped them 4 straight possessions and score 4 straight times while they were giving it their full effort was pretty unlikely. 

The 2nd quarters of all four games were all great examples of this.  They obviously made a concerted effort to finish the half strong:

Game 1:  Tied with 5:48 left.   Cavs finish quarter up 8.
Game 2:  Celtics up 9 with 4:37 left.   Cavs finish quarter up 1.
Game 3:  1 point game with 1:10 left.  Cavs finish quarter up 8.
Game 4:  Cavs up 11 with 3:30 left.  Cavs finish quarter up 21. 


LeBron coasted through much of those games, but he could score on us at will.  There was a point in Game 4 where they pointed out LeBron hadn't gotten to the line for most of the second half.  That's a sign of someone not being aggressive.  Then he promptly coasted in for an easy layup.    We didn't get Cleveland's best effort in that series, because they clearly didn't need to give their best effort.   I didn't see a sense of urgency from the Cavs.  I didn't see any concern.  LeBron looked relaxed.  There were smiles.  The talentless Boston squad worked their tail off, but as Windhorst pointed out, the Cavs still had the capacity to sweep us with C-level performances.

viewers came to that "bored" notion, because, as i said, they personally didn't think the c's had a good chance. it's called "projecting."

That's not at all why I, or anyone else watching the games, came to that conclusion. 

Unless you are omniscient I'm not sure you can presume to know conclusions anyone else draw or why they came to those conclusions.

Totally agree.  Thank you for disproving kraidstar's nonsensical theory that many independent minds came to the conclusion the Cavs were "bored" simply because we were all "projecting".    There's no way kraidstar or anyone else can presume to know why ABC's broadcast team, myself, Simmons, Windhorst and many many others felt the Cavs were "bored" in that series.   

All we know is that from watching that series and witnessing how bored the Cavs were, several of us came to the conclusion that the Cavs were dogging it.

[byennie]

I think making the playoffs has done weird things to people's minds not just in terms of the tank vs no tank debate, but on the actual quality of the team.

All year long, it seemed perfectly reasonable and "part of the plan" that the Cs were in the bottom 10 (or even 5) of the league. Suddenly our boys make an inspired run and grab the 7th seed and they start getting evaluated like the 14th best team. They draw a title contender with a "Big 3" in their prime right now and of course it's not going to go well.

The way I see it, we got 40 wins out of a 20-30 win roster. It is what it is in terms of the draft pick we ended up with, but losing to the Cavs doesn't mean we're suddenly off course. We've got a top GM, a top coach, a bunch of young players, owners willing to spend, a war chest of draft picks, and as much cap room on the way as we can possibly use. People will disagree about the exact value of the players currently on the roster, but that's a surprisingly small factor here. The jury's out, sure, but we're not suddenly off course.

[Snakehead]

I think Smart's passing not being mentioned at all is missing a huge point.  He has some versatility on offense Allen doesn't have at all.  Super one dimensional.  He has to hone things, don't get me wrong, just saying he already shows dimensions in his rookie year that show to me, a complete player.

Also: I think this statement that we can't beat the Cavs, a team with LeBron on it, once right now means we don't have much to be positive about.  I think the Cavs are very good as a healthy, complete team.  I think they would win the title (of course, there are currently complications).  Anyways, point being that's a high bar.  I want to win the title too, trust me, but not being better than the Cavs doesn't mean failure.  I want the team to keep getting better and it's not nearly good enough right now.  But just saying.  It's an unfair bar.  Better teams than us got swept by worse teams in this playoffs.  It's just not that simple.

Also: Isaiah Thomas had one game where he got shut down by Shump and another where he actually got a lot of good looks and missed them.  So he's not good enough to start on another East Playoff team?  I didn't get this point of the podcast.  This guy came second in 6th man voting and now, after two games, he's chopped liver.  Also he played well in the first two games, I guess those don't count.  That's nonsense.  I think Thomas could play a Jason Terry-esque role on a title contender.

[celticsclay]

Im personally disappointed that there is a 5 page discussion of anything windhorst is involved in. That guy does not really write informative pieces and and is basically a fan with a bigger audience and microphone. At least simmons can say some funny things on occasion (for some people).

[PhoSita]

Couldn't it be argued that Allen was a superior offensive player? 

Yes, which is why I noted that Marcus has a long way to go in order to become the finisher that TA is (and was).

Still, I just find it kind of amusing when people use the term "Rich Mans' Tony Allen" as some sort of derogatory statement about Marcus Smart's potential.  I'd LOVE to have a Rich Man's Tony Allen on my team, and simply having Marcus turn into a combo guard with an equivalent impact to Memphis Tony Allen would be a pretty solid outcome for the 6th overall pick.


I agree with D.o.s. that it's unlikely Smart will have the same kind of impact defensively as peak TA simply because TA is big enough to credibly guard LeBron and Durant and other elite SFs.  Smart, remarkably, showed is his rookie season that he can be relied upon to switch onto SFs, but he is really closer to a point guard than a small forward in terms of defensive size.

Still, as others have pointed out, Smart is a much better passer and ball-handler, as a rookie, than TA has ever really shown to be with any consistency, and I don't see any reason we should believe he won't improve in those categories.


I'm pretty confident that Smart will be never be one of the top two stars on a contender, but I think he does have the upside to be that 3rd guy who is functionally an elite role player, as Simmons discussed in the podcast.

[Casperian]

I think making the playoffs has done weird things to people's minds not just in terms of the tank vs no tank debate, but on the actual quality of the team.

All year long, it seemed perfectly reasonable and "part of the plan" that the Cs were in the bottom 10 (or even 5) of the league. Suddenly our boys make an inspired run and grab the 7th seed and they start getting evaluated like the 14th best team. They draw a title contender with a "Big 3" in their prime right now and of course it's not going to go well.

Whoa, slow down with the common sense. How are people supposed to look smarter than others with this narrative?