Celtics' Isaiah Thomas is a fourth-quarter killer, but which team is he killing?

[Ilikesports17]

Isaiah was a minus 10 last night.
Crowder was a plus 7 and Smart was a plus 11.
But Isaiah has the guts and ability to make the big shots down the stretch. A lot of players on this team are afraid to take shots when the pressure is on.
I don't know the answer, but I like the idea of Fultz as our future point guard.

Yeah I agree. Thing about +/- stat is that while it can give you a lot of info about how a player impacts a game, its not foolproof. Not all minutes are equal. We sit down Thomas in the last 2 minutes and Im certain Crowder and Smart's +7 and +11 respectively will come down and we lose.

Who was on the floor in this game a lot while IT was on the floor?

Andre Drummond, that's who.   Did everybody forget about him?   It just so happens that AD and IT were on the floor for almost the exact same minutes of this game.  IT was -10 mainly because AD was +12.

For IT to be "-10" in the game, that means points were scored by Detroit, right?  Well HOW were they scoring them?

They were scoring them with a ton of second-chance points based primarily on Drummond's rebounding dominance.   Detroit's three best big men, Drummond (28), Morris (13) and Harris (15) combined to score 56 points -- almost all of that in the paint (Morris made one 3PT shot).

Was all that dominance near the post Isaiah's fault?  Is he supposed to be defending the bigs now?

Five of the points that CAN be charged directly to Isaiah came on the two fouls on the KCP 3PT shot attempts that gave the latter 6 FT attempts (KCP made 5 of them).

But otherwise, the Pistons made hardly any of their shots from outside and their two starting guards shot horribly.  KCP shot 5 of 16, getting 5 of his 18 points from the two aforementioned plays and Jackson shot 4 of 12 and was in deep foul trouble all game.

Down the stretch Detroit absolutely feasted on Thomas. Thomas was absolutely helpless against him. Thing is, with about 5 minutes left Isaiah became unstoppable and the defense shortcomings became irrelevant.

What does that mean?  WHO "feasted on Thomas"?  Which player and how?

Per NBA/SportsVU player tracking, in the 4th period Thomas defended 3 DFGA, giving up 2 makes and he also got called for the two fouls I mentioned.  That's it.  That amounts to 9 points, over half of that came on the two fouls, one of which Stevens was howling at the refs over.

In the 4th period, Detroit's big men, Drummond, Morris, Harris and Leuer combined to score 22 points.   Which of those points were Isaiah's fault?

You do realize you can't use facts against a hot take right?

Caldewell pope had his way with Thomas. Also he was easily rubbed of on screens on a few plays forcing people to help and switch resulting in a) easy rebound opportunities and b)easier shots for Detroit that aren't technically defended but thomas.

Pope shot 30% in that game.   His scoring efficiency (TS%) was a p----poor .461 and his effective shooting (eFG%) was a miserable .375.   He took 16 FGA to score just 18 points -- and that's with a gift of 3 FTA from the refs.  He dished out just 3 assists in almost 36 minutes of play.   That is in no way having "his way" unless his desired way was to stand around and do nothing on offense.

How well did the much taller Pope & Jackson do at defending Isaiah, btw?   Were they better at fighting through screens?  Did they prevent easier shots for Boston that they technically didn't defend?  Did they do a better job of contesting IT's shots?  Did they shut the little guy down?

Or ... did Isaiah have "his way" with Pope & Jackson?

Pope had a bad game until the 4th quarter at which point I absolutely maintain that he had his way with Thomas.

Only looking at points scored off of shots defended by Isaiah Thomas (so not looking at the switches he forced etc etc) Thomas allowed 9 points in the 4th quarter. Thats a lot of points. Thats an average 4th quarter for Russell Westbrook. Detroit doesnt have a single Russell Westbrook.

Now to say Isaiah had his way with Pope and Jackson is an understatement. Thomas dominated them completely. It was a slaughter. He was absolutely unstoppable.

[mmmmm]

Isaiah was a minus 10 last night.
Crowder was a plus 7 and Smart was a plus 11.
But Isaiah has the guts and ability to make the big shots down the stretch. A lot of players on this team are afraid to take shots when the pressure is on.
I don't know the answer, but I like the idea of Fultz as our future point guard.

Yeah I agree. Thing about +/- stat is that while it can give you a lot of info about how a player impacts a game, its not foolproof. Not all minutes are equal. We sit down Thomas in the last 2 minutes and Im certain Crowder and Smart's +7 and +11 respectively will come down and we lose.

Who was on the floor in this game a lot while IT was on the floor?

Andre Drummond, that's who.   Did everybody forget about him?   It just so happens that AD and IT were on the floor for almost the exact same minutes of this game.  IT was -10 mainly because AD was +12.

For IT to be "-10" in the game, that means points were scored by Detroit, right?  Well HOW were they scoring them?

They were scoring them with a ton of second-chance points based primarily on Drummond's rebounding dominance.   Detroit's three best big men, Drummond (28), Morris (13) and Harris (15) combined to score 56 points -- almost all of that in the paint (Morris made one 3PT shot).

Was all that dominance near the post Isaiah's fault?  Is he supposed to be defending the bigs now?

Five of the points that CAN be charged directly to Isaiah came on the two fouls on the KCP 3PT shot attempts that gave the latter 6 FT attempts (KCP made 5 of them).

But otherwise, the Pistons made hardly any of their shots from outside and their two starting guards shot horribly.  KCP shot 5 of 16, getting 5 of his 18 points from the two aforementioned plays and Jackson shot 4 of 12 and was in deep foul trouble all game.

Down the stretch Detroit absolutely feasted on Thomas. Thomas was absolutely helpless against him. Thing is, with about 5 minutes left Isaiah became unstoppable and the defense shortcomings became irrelevant.

What does that mean?  WHO "feasted on Thomas"?  Which player and how?

Per NBA/SportsVU player tracking, in the 4th period Thomas defended 3 DFGA, giving up 2 makes and he also got called for the two fouls I mentioned.  That's it.  That amounts to 9 points, over half of that came on the two fouls, one of which Stevens was howling at the refs over.

In the 4th period, Detroit's big men, Drummond, Morris, Harris and Leuer combined to score 22 points.   Which of those points were Isaiah's fault?

You do realize you can't use facts against a hot take right?

Caldewell pope had his way with Thomas. Also he was easily rubbed of on screens on a few plays forcing people to help and switch resulting in a) easy rebound opportunities and b)easier shots for Detroit that aren't technically defended but thomas.

Pope shot 30% in that game.   His scoring efficiency (TS%) was a p----poor .461 and his effective shooting (eFG%) was a miserable .375.   He took 16 FGA to score just 18 points -- and that's with a gift of 3 FTA from the refs.  He dished out just 3 assists in almost 36 minutes of play.   That is in no way having "his way" unless his desired way was to stand around and do nothing on offense.

How well did the much taller Pope & Jackson do at defending Isaiah, btw?   Were they better at fighting through screens?  Did they prevent easier shots for Boston that they technically didn't defend?  Did they do a better job of contesting IT's shots?  Did they shut the little guy down?

Or ... did Isaiah have "his way" with Pope & Jackson?

Pope had a bad game until the 4th quarter at which point I absolutely maintain that he had his way with Thomas.

Only looking at points scored off of shots defended by Isaiah Thomas (so not looking at the switches he forced etc etc) Thomas allowed 9 points in the 4th quarter. Thats a lot of points. Thats an average 4th quarter for Russell Westbrook. Detroit doesnt have a single Russell Westbrook.

Now to say Isaiah had his way with Pope and Jackson is an understatement. Thomas dominated them completely. It was a slaughter. He was absolutely unstoppable.

Again, 5 of those 9 points surrendered by IT came off the two foul calls, one of which was extremely dubious.

Pope scored those 5 free throws plus he made one 3PT shot in the 4th.  He also had a turnover and committed a PF of his own in the period.

If that (making one shot in 8.6 minutes of play) is your definition of 'having his way' on offense then your standards are very low.

Look, this is getting silly.   The truth is, it wasn't Isaiah's defense that allowed Detroit to climb back into the game.   

It was very clearly Detroit's big men, combining to score 19 points on 7 of 11 shooting during that period that did it.   Notably Kelly and Amir combined to give up 7 of 8 shots that they defended during that period.   Only one of those shots was off an ORB, btw, so these weren't the result of their bigs getting 'easier rebounds' that they turned into makes.

[Celtics4ever]

Pope had a bad game until the 4th quarter at which point I absolutely maintain that he had his way with Thomas.

Your not having your way with anyone when your 5 for 16 for the field.   Here is the box score find another cause because Pope shot 31% the only people he was abusing was his own team

http://www.nba.com/games/20170130/DETBOS#/boxscore

You can maintain all you want but the facts don't bear this out at all.  Pope played very inefficiently.

I think sometimes IT is a liability on D but last night was not one of them because Pope shot poorly.

[greece66]

This is more emphasized here in Euro basketball and I watch it with maybe other eyes than you in America in terms of two-sided game and showtime. His defense in the fourth quarters is as extreme as his offense. Nothing to everything, that's why I tell you that he would be benched by many Euro coaches.

What I have been thinking for some heroic games by the tiny guy is that he had to extinguish the fires he had been creating.

Don't misinterpret me. I enjoy a lot watching him being the best at the end of games attacking the rim and raining threes, and Thomas is the face of this franchise... but this article shows in numbers a reality. Is he really a max guy to be the first option in a championship team or should we try to deal him at his peak market value? That is the biggest question next summer.

Um I don't mean to be rude but I think that's why euros haven't won against usa basketball for quite a long time lol

You are not rude. You are mixing different things and not getting the main idea. It happens when you don't read carefully or don't have the ability to do so.

BTW, in the last decade, USA teams with good NBA players have lost to European teams, in terms of franchises and national teams. It didn't happen before. But this is not the point here, so leave it.

Dario, you do make some good points. It is true that usually coaches have more control over their players in Europe.

But I disagree with the comparison between European and US bball. Our franchises are full with Americans anyway. But this is a digression from the thread's topic.

More importantly, I disagree with your point on IT. His D is a weakness, but to say that his D is as bad as his offense is good is a stretch. IT has helped us enormously so far this season.

[The Oracle]

Pope had a bad game until the 4th quarter at which point I absolutely maintain that he had his way with Thomas.

Your not having your way with anyone when your 5 for 16 for the field.   Here is the box score find another cause because Pope shot 31% the only people he was abusing was his own team

http://www.nba.com/games/20170130/DETBOS#/boxscore

You can maintain all you want but the facts don't bear this out at all.  Pope played very inefficiently.

I think sometimes IT is a liability on D but last night was not one of them because Pope shot poorly.

Whether or not Pope made or missed his shots had nothing to do with I.T.'s defense.  Every shot Pope took was either defended by someone other than I.T. or was a clean look completely unaffected by anything I.T. did.  By my count 16 of the final 23 points Detroit scored were attributable to I.T. either directly or indirectly.  I.T. was amazing as usual offensively in the 4th but was useless defensively, to say otherwise is just not being objective. 

[Celtics4ever]

Whether or not Pope made or missed his shots had nothing to do with I.T.'s defense.  Every shot Pope took was either defended by someone other than I.T. or was a clean look completely unaffected by anything I.T. did.  By my count 16 of the final 23 points Detroit scored were attributable to I.T. either directly or indirectly.  I.T. was amazing as usual offensively in the 4th but was useless defensively, to say otherwise is just not being objective.

And yet Stevens still plays him, are you a scout, I would bet not.  The poster I retorted acted like Pope abused the team, he did not and I used facts to dispute that.

You use the term objective but you were completely subjective and I don't know if it is worth discussing if you do not understand this basic comment.  Let me try to illustrate this for you:

Objective (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

I used stats, you used some count that you came up with.   You're the one being subjective here. 
Sorry if I don't buy into by your count because that means nothing to me, no offense.   I doubt we will find the "Oracle Count" in any NBA stat sheet anytime soon.

[Ilikesports17]

Whether or not Pope made or missed his shots had nothing to do with I.T.'s defense.  Every shot Pope took was either defended by someone other than I.T. or was a clean look completely unaffected by anything I.T. did.  By my count 16 of the final 23 points Detroit scored were attributable to I.T. either directly or indirectly.  I.T. was amazing as usual offensively in the 4th but was useless defensively, to say otherwise is just not being objective.

And yet Stevens still plays him, are you a scout, I would bet not.  The poster I retorted acted like Pope abused the team, he did not and I used facts to dispute that.

You use the term objective but you were completely subjective and I don't know if it is worth discussing if you do not understand this basic comment.  Let me try to illustrate this for you:

Objective (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

I used stats, you used some count that you came up with.   You're the one being subjective here. 
Sorry if I don't buy into by your count because that means nothing to me, no offense.   I doubt we will find the "Oracle Count" in any NBA stat sheet anytime soon.

Pope had his way with him. He did. He got wherever he wanted against Thomas. Thomas sucks at defense.

Why did Brad keep Isaiah in? because his offense more than made up for his defense. Its OK when you suck at defense if you can drop 24 in a quarter. I have never once contested this argument.

Thomas won the matchup hands down. He still sucks at defense and sucked at defense in the 4th quarter last night. Thats the way it goes when you are 5'9" and asked to carry an offense.

[The Oracle]

Whether or not Pope made or missed his shots had nothing to do with I.T.'s defense.  Every shot Pope took was either defended by someone other than I.T. or was a clean look completely unaffected by anything I.T. did.  By my count 16 of the final 23 points Detroit scored were attributable to I.T. either directly or indirectly.  I.T. was amazing as usual offensively in the 4th but was useless defensively, to say otherwise is just not being objective.

And yet Stevens still plays him, are you a scout, I would bet not.  The poster I retorted acted like Pope abused the team, he did not and I used facts to dispute that.

You use the term objective but you were completely subjective and I don't know if it is worth discussing if you do not understand this basic comment.  Let me try to illustrate this for you:

Objective (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Subjective based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

I used stats, you used some count that you came up with.   You're the one being subjective here. 
Sorry if I don't buy into by your count because that means nothing to me, no offense.   I doubt we will find the "Oracle Count" in any NBA stat sheet anytime soon.

Where in my post did I suggest that I.T. should be benched?  I.T.'s offense outweighs his defense by a wide enough margin that I would never suggest that. 

You can rewatch any play of any game on NBA.com in the play by play.  Click menu, all teams, Boston, where it says profile scroll down click game logs, select the game you want to look at, click box score and select play by play, you can click on any play you want and a video will pop up.

I.T. only defended Pope on 5 of his 16 shots giving up 1 bucket.  He did also foul Pope 3 different times resulting in 8 free throws 6 of which he made.  The rest of the game I.T. was defending Smith, Jackson, Johnson or others.  The 16 points in the 4th qtr. I referred to are listed below.

1. He gets blocked by Smith at 7:04 and gives up a breakaway dunk.
2. At 6:34 he fouls Pope on a 3.
3. At 6:06 he gets beat coming off a screen forcing Horford to pick up Pope resulting in a layup           by Drummond.
4. At 5:35 Pope drills a 3 right over I.T.
5. At 4:28 I.T. fouls Pope on another 3 (pretty weak call but nonetheless)
6. At 1:58 he abuses poor Leuer throwing him like a dirty rag to the floor.
7. At :08 seconds he gives up an easy layup to Smith.

I.T is not "sometimes a liability" on defense, he is a liability on defense every second he is on the floor no matter the outcome of any individual play.  This does NOT mean the C's should sit him in any way but to deny so is utter nonsense.  He is amazing on offense pure and simple, we are watching a magician at work.

[PAOBoston]

Curious question to the super stat geniuses on Celticsblog: was this trend with IT as apparent/similar last year when the C's had on of the best defensive units in the league?

[chilidawg]

Curious question to the super stat geniuses on Celticsblog: was this trend with IT as apparent/similar last year when the C's had on of the best defensive units in the league?

On behalf of all geniuses, Yes.

[Celtics4ever]

You can rewatch any play of any game on NBA.com in the play by play.  Click menu, all teams, Boston, where it says profile scroll down click game logs, select the game you want to look at, click box score and select play by play, you can click on any play you want and a video will pop up.

You still do not realize that you're placing your opinion in the rewatch, which is inherently selective.   

Quite frankly, I have seen more bigs expose this year than IT's man yet you ignore this in your analysis. 

He has his flaws but most of the world thinks he positives outweigh any flaws.   We would be lucky to win half our games without him.   We never would have signed Al, but some here no doubt would like that.  He is carrying us not killing us.  His D is his weak point but that is more because of his size than any other factor.

[Ed Hollison]

At the risk of being redundant, I just thought I'd add my two cents...

You can be both astounded by what Isaiah's doing, AND call him a superstar, AND acknowledge that the Celtics probably aren't winning a championship this way.

Before IT went on his usual 4th-quarter massacre last night, there were tons of instances where he was just abused on defense. Just watch closely. His defense is terrible, and I completely buy the author's analysis that part of the reason why the team's defense has declined this year is that the other four guys are helping to cover IT's deficiencies on that end.

Can the C's win this way, that is with a superstar offensive player who's a major defensive liability? To answer this question, think of the Warriors and Steph Curry. Curry is a better defender than Isaiah, but you can still take advantage of him on that end. Just because he's below average on defense, though, doesn't mean you bench him or trade him away. To paraphrase the article: It's Steph freakin Curry.

The problem is that the Warriors have a great set of defensive players around Curry. Thompson, Durant, and Green are all top-tier defenders. Zaza and David West can bang down low. On the bench you've got guys like Iguodala and Livingston.

The Celtics don't have this. Sure, they've got a couple of superb backcourt defenders in Smart and Bradley. But Amir Johnson and Al Horford have trouble with fast PFs and Cs, and you can beat them in the pick and roll. Crowder's defense has dipped, probably from his sore ankle. Jaylen Brown is still learning on the job.

To be clear: you can still be a really, really good team with a guy like Isaiah. The Celtics are on pace to win 50+, after all. I just think it's going to be near impossible to win a title with the style that the Celtics are currently playing.

[Darío SpanishFan]

This is more emphasized here in Euro basketball and I watch it with maybe other eyes than you in America in terms of two-sided game and showtime. His defense in the fourth quarters is as extreme as his offense. Nothing to everything, that's why I tell you that he would be benched by many Euro coaches.

What I have been thinking for some heroic games by the tiny guy is that he had to extinguish the fires he had been creating.

Don't misinterpret me. I enjoy a lot watching him being the best at the end of games attacking the rim and raining threes, and Thomas is the face of this franchise... but this article shows in numbers a reality. Is he really a max guy to be the first option in a championship team or should we try to deal him at his peak market value? That is the biggest question next summer.

Um I don't mean to be rude but I think that's why euros haven't won against usa basketball for quite a long time lol

You are not rude. You are mixing different things and not getting the main idea. It happens when you don't read carefully or don't have the ability to do so.

BTW, in the last decade, USA teams with good NBA players have lost to European teams, in terms of franchises and national teams. It didn't happen before. But this is not the point here, so leave it.

Dario, you do make some good points. It is true that usually coaches have more control over their players in Europe.

But I disagree with the comparison between European and US bball. Our franchises are full with Americans anyway. But this is a digression from the thread's topic.

More importantly, I disagree with your point on IT. His D is a weakness, but to say that his D is as bad as his offense is good is a stretch. IT has helped us enormously so far this season.

It's a matter of balance, I think. Even of perspective, some of us being more defensive-minded than others. I prefer having IT for the regular season, especially due to the time of the games here in Europe. We need someone waking us up constantly    As I have said some times in these forums, play-off time will be the real challenge for him/us. Can he be a number one option in a contender or, painfully, do we have to let him go next summer in a peak trading value? We'll see. We all love him, it's just a matter of taking the best path into 18th banner.

On the other hand, he creates also constant mismatches in defense and this may hurt us as a team on the D side. For example, Toronto has Lowry who is a similar player to Thomas (in size, I'm talking) and I watched IT's defense yesterday better than usual. Even I looked to the +/- stat at the end of the game, which I never do, to check that he had a good rate.

But, as I say, it is nice to have different points of view.

[The Oracle]

Curious question to the super stat geniuses on Celticsblog: was this trend with IT as apparent/similar last year when the C's had on of the best defensive units in the league?

This year without I.T. on the floor the C's have a Def. Rat. of 98.4 in 819 minutes.  Last year without I.T. on the floor the C's had a Def. Rat. of  97.5 in 1312 minutes.  Not much of a difference between last year and this year when I.T. is NOT on the floor.

This year with I.T. 110.3 in 1548 minutes.  Last year with I.T. 102.6.  The numbers with I.T. on the floor have went up dramatically.  Worst Def. Rat. on team this year and 2nd worst last year among regular rotation players (slightly ahead of Avery).  In no way would I blame I.T. solely for that jump as there are many other contributing factors like injuries, 3 guard lineups, personnel changes etc..

Defensive ratings league wide have jumped up probably 2-3 points on average just from last year, so that is part of it.  The best defense in the league this year is G.S. at 101.1., last year S.A. 96.6 and Atl. 98.8.

[saltlover]

Yesterday IT scored 19 points in the 4th and the Raptors scored 19 in the 4th.  I think the question in this post has been answered.

Enjoy it everyone.  IT is having the best individual Celtic season since I've been old enough to remember.  (Didn't see the mid-80s.)