Author Topic: We are too small  (Read 1175 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

We are too small
« on: November 13, 2018, 12:56:04 PM »

Offline Chris22

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4710
  • Tommy Points: 427
We keep getting killed inside by big, talented centers.

When will Brad get it? We need to start Baynes and play Williams.



Re: We are too small
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2018, 01:31:37 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20779
  • Tommy Points: 985
Baynes was -16 in just under 9 minutes of action against the Blazers.  It isn't like he did much of anything when he was on the floor except let the Blazers score at will.  He was better against the Jazz, but it isn't like Gobert's 17/15 isn't inline with his season averages. 

Re: We are too small
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2018, 01:36:02 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4312
  • Tommy Points: 359
Everyone seems to be jumping on this bandwagon.  It seemed everyone was thrilled to be able to start Tatum, a skinny wing, at PF because this is the new NBA.  Now we are seeing the problems with that.

But the solution is not that easy.  The problem is that Baynes and Williams are not that good.  You would go from playing a good player but at the wrong position to playing a player that is not that good but at least at his natural position.

I have been saying from the summer that Hayward should come off the bench (I don't care what his contract amount is) and we should start another big.  Further, we need to keep enough size on the court throughout the game for the most part.  But playing Baynes and Williams more is still a problem in of itself.

The answer is probably to trade Rozier and a pick (for example) for a starting level big.  Or maybe you even consider trading Brown for an even better big.  Our roster has a lot of talent but right now, the talent is concentrated at the small and wing positions.  Other than Horford, we are really weak at the big positions.

Re: We are too small
« Reply #3 on: November 13, 2018, 01:57:00 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17803
  • Tommy Points: 1636
The issue isn't that the Celts are too small, per se, it's that playing small isn't benefiting the team to the extent that you would hope or expect.

They're generating plenty of three pointers, which is in part due to their smaller lineups.  But they don't hit a high enough percentage of their threes. 

They also don't create a lot of looks inside or free throws, which you would hope to get from having small guys matched up with bigger guys.


If you're not hitting a lot of threes and you're not blowing by slower defenders to get looks inside, what are you getting out of playing small?

For the Celts the benefits seem to actual come on the defensive end, i.e. it makes them more switchable and puts more guys on the floor who have quick hands to get steals.

Problem is, they get killed on the board and larger players can get a good number of easy looks inside (e.g. Nurkic).



Bottom line, they either need to get to the rim more or improve their shooting efficiency dramatically.
Youíll have to excuse my lengthinessóthe reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: We are too small
« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2018, 02:10:59 PM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4897
  • Tommy Points: 413
I'm all in favor of playing big, at certain times, as long as it's paired with playing small too. The trick is to have a talented center to put into the game to play big.

Baynes is pretty limited other than playing good positional defense. He can't score from the paint, he barely protects the rim, god knows he can't shoot the 3 anymore. In fact, his entire shot looks different somehow too.

Al looks like he's just starting to age a little. His effectiveness per minutes played, judging from the eye test method looks to be slipping lately. Don't forget there are a lot of miles on Al.   

Re: We are too small
« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2018, 03:42:36 PM »

Offline KGBirdBias

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1472
  • Tommy Points: 114
I agree that Williams needs to play. If a big doesn't shoot a 3, Stevens won't play him. LOL

Anything Williams give you is a bonus. Blocks, near blocks, changed shots, rebounds, hustle buckets, dunks and fouls is all gravy.

Re: We are too small
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2018, 04:53:02 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9949
  • Tommy Points: 656
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Quote
The problem is that Baynes and Williams are not that good. 
Pretty much.  I really don't think there's much that Brad can do rotation-wise.  If I were Ainge, I would look to make a trade before the deadline for a good big with better versatility.  I see no point in riding out the season this way...Horford is getting older, Kyrie could still bolt, Rozier is expiring...go all in on this season!

Re: We are too small
« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2018, 05:23:18 PM »

Offline SHAQATTACK

  • John Havlicek
  • ****************************
  • Posts: 28757
  • Tommy Points: 2195
EAT MOR Chicken

Re: We are too small
« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2018, 05:26:30 PM »

Offline Kyriefor3

  • Brad Wanamaker
  • Posts: 7
  • Tommy Points: 4
I really feel like danny should try to explore options for WCS give us some size and points in the paint.

Re: We are too small
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2018, 05:35:48 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13804
  • Tommy Points: 1805
  • bammokja
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy ó not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: We are too small
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2018, 06:00:01 PM »

Offline ozgod

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2602
  • Tommy Points: 166
For the Celts the benefits seem to actual come on the defensive end, i.e. it makes them more switchable and puts more guys on the floor who have quick hands to get steals.

Problem is, they get killed on the board and larger players can get a good number of easy looks inside (e.g. Nurkic).

Bottom line, they either need to get to the rim more or improve their shooting efficiency dramatically.

This is it in a nutshell.
Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D

Re: We are too small
« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2018, 06:14:40 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3699
  • Tommy Points: 617
Baynes was -16 in just under 9 minutes of action against the Blazers.  It isn't like he did much of anything when he was on the floor except let the Blazers score at will.  He was better against the Jazz, but it isn't like Gobert's 17/15 isn't inline with his season averages.

I don't think those numbers really tell a useful story.

The problem we have had with size is a two-big-body problem that we currently keep throwing one big body at.   

Basically, what teams have been doing to us is looking to see if Horford plays to switch or double on the ball-handler.   In our typical 'small' configuration, with only one big on the floor, that means that an undersized SG/SF-sized guy has to pick up the roller, who is (lately) typically a seven footer.   That's the mismatch that teams are exploiting of late.  Alternatively, if Al doesn't switch, then our guard has to fight through or under the pick to stay on the handler.   That creates a big advantage for the handler.   Hence we've been getting killed alternatively by either rolling bigs or quick scoring guards.

When Horford has been on the floor this season, it hasn't been with baynes.   Horford has played only 3.5% of his total minutes with Baynes (and only two possessions with Theis, just 7 possessions with Williams and none with Yabusele) this season.   That means that our "PF" this year with Horford has primarily been fulfilled by one of our various wings.

Similarly, Baynes has shared the floor with Horford on only 10.3% of his own minutes and none with Theis, Yabusele or Williams.

In other words, we are playing almost exclusively with just one 'true big' on the floor at a time.  And that's been true for Baynes and Theis (just 10.4% of his possessions have been with another big on the floor) as well as Horford.   For good or bad, Brad has gone all-in on playing with just one big on the floor the vast majority of the time.

So, when you cite that the team played poorly with Baynes on the floor in the last game, that isn't really addressing what folks in this thread are calling for.

Because what they are suggesting is that we try playing both Baynes and Horford on the floor at the same time.

Shocking thought, I know.

It's only something that worked really, really, really well all last season!!!!

And this isn't about just how good Aron Baynes is or not.  One doesn't have to claim he's an all-star to see the reality that playing him WITH Al works really well.    Al Horford has played soooo much better for us since he came here when he's been able to play the 4, with a true big man sharing the floor with him.

Last year, Al played about 43% of his minutes at the 4.   And his differential PER at the 4 was +2.0 compared to at the 5.   The team was a +10.6 with Al & Aron up front as opposed to +8.0 with Al as the only big.

So far, this year's strategy of playing almost exclusively with only one 'true big' on the floor is getting mixed results.  We started off strong on defense, but lately, teams with size seem to be picking on it using pick & roll in a very targeted fashion.   A lot of that would be neutralized if the small lineup were to return some of the offensive benefits that it is supposed to.  But for a variety of reasons the team has gotten off to a truly horrendous start offensively.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: We are too small
« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2018, 06:16:34 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35360
  • Tommy Points: 5863
The Celtics have the best defensive rating in the league. For all the crying about defense we hell Indy, Portland and Phoenix in regular time to 100 points each. In Indy, Phoenix and Denver the player that killed us were Oladipo, Booker and Murray. All guards.

Boston is also 7th in defensive rebounds per game and 11th in total rebounds per game.

What this team needs to do is get out of the shooting slump they are in. They generate more open looks in the league than anyone but are hitting those open looks at a terrible %.

We aren't too small 6'3" PG, 6'7" SG, 6'8" SF, 6'9" PF, 6'10' PF. And we are extremely long. We just need to improve our shooting. That's it.

Re: We are too small
« Reply #13 on: November 13, 2018, 06:25:53 PM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3679
  • Tommy Points: 950
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.

Iím too lazy to look it up and am curious, whatís our rank in rebounding percentage?

I feel like that rank may be higher than it should because we force a lot more misses than the average team, although we probably play at a slower pace.

I donít think we get killed on the glass but I also donít think we are particularly great. Rozier is the only plus rebounder for his position, imo.
I AM A CELTIC

Re: We are too small
« Reply #14 on: November 13, 2018, 06:55:16 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35360
  • Tommy Points: 5863
well, right now the celtics are 11th in the nba in total rebounds per team. so they arent getting killed too often in that category.

Iím too lazy to look it up and am curious, whatís our rank in rebounding percentage?

I feel like that rank may be higher than it should because we force a lot more misses than the average team, although we probably play at a slower pace.

I donít think we get killed on the glass but I also donít think we are particularly great. Rozier is the only plus rebounder for his position, imo.
We are 7th in defreb% and 20th in totreb% but we are so low in totreb% because we shoot the most perimeter shots in the NBA and make no attempt at offensive rebounding because we would rather get back on defense and stop fast breaks. Therefore we are last in the league in offreb%.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required