Post Game Thread - vs Utah Jazz, Utah Summer League Game 2

[bobheckler]

http://www.nba.com/games/20160705/BOSUTA/gameinfo.html



Rozier very pro again.  He'll be a rotation player this year.  He looks as good in his 2nd summer league as Smart did last year in his 2nd.

Young shooting his way back into it.  17 points on 4-9, 4-5 from 3.  Same old, though.  No offense but 3s.

Yabusele MUCH better this time.  13 on 5-12.  8 boards and 2 blocks.

Bentil REALLY struggling on defense against Trey Lyles, who is a bruiser.

Trey Lyles is a beast.  At least in summer league.

Speaking of summer league, Frenchy was interviewed after the game and was asked about the difference between the NBA and France.  He said that summer league is much faster on offense and defense.  Jeez.  He thinks summer league is fast?  I can't wait to see his head explodes if he gets invited to veteran's camp and goes against actual NBAers and not players who are on a bubble of the bubble.


Next game on Thursday, 7/7 vs San Antonio.


bob


.

[bobheckler]

Scott Souza
@Scott_Souza about 16 minutes ago
Saw this Utah Summer League #Jazz promo at least dozen times before it hit me they actually give away a weeklong trip to Mexico w/ purchase.

Reply Retweet Like
MY NOTE:  Buy a season's ticket to the Jazz and they will give you a week in Mexico.  Including airfare?


Adam Himmelsbach
@AdamHimmelsbach about 11 minutes ago
Big takeaway from tonight is Guerschon Yabusele showing he's better than he showed on Monday.

Reply Retweet Like



Scott Souza
@Scott_Souza 2 minutes ago
There has to be a place in any #NBA organization for "A Big Dancing Bear." #Celtics #NBASummerLeague #GuerschonYabusele

Reply Retweet Like







Watch Frenchy.  In on the first shot and there for the 2nd too.

https://vine.co/u/935285617544310784



Adam Himmelsbach
‏@AdamHimmelsbach
I can report Guerschon Yabusele swears in English
RETWEETS
31
LIKES
78



Brian Robb
@CelticsHub about 1 hour ago
The more I see Terry Rozier this summer, the more I feel comfortable about the Celtics giving him car keys to 2nd unit next season.

Reply Retweet Like



https://vine.co/v/5awATJaHlED



bob


.

[steve3344]

http://www.csnne.com/boston-celtics/stars-studs-and-duds-rozier-continues-be-celtics-floor-leader

[bobheckler]

What is impressive about both of these two wins, summer league or no summer league, has been that we are a really small team.  Our "bigs" are Ben Bentil, who is 6'9" 240#, and Guerschon Yabusele (I wrote that out just for kdp) who is maybe 6'8", 275#.  Bentil was tortured on defense by Christian Wood on Monday and by Trey Lyles yesterday.  Frenchy played pretty good help defense, there was one defensive stand in the last minute or so where we earned a 24-second violation in part because Young (of all people!) made a key block and Frenchy made another and was there with Young challenging the second.  Frenchy was all over the place trying to cover everybody on that play (the link to the video is in my first post).

Small ball can work if you run and hit your 3s.

GSW is micro now.  They just signed Zaza Pachulia and that's their whole center corp.  Bogut is gone, Ezeli is gone, Speights is gone.  After Zaza their biggest player is Durant at 6'9".

It's old school basketball.  Not old school as in 1980s but old school as in 1960s.  Run-and-gun, up-and-down.  Anybody who thinks that they can win by slowing the game down and using up 20+ seconds while they pound it inside will have problems because a modern team will just run it down court and score in 7 seconds or less and maybe even get 3 out of it.  More possessions with high percentage shooting, on fast break layups and 35+% 3pt shooting (52.5% eFG%) will beat fewer possessions and shooting 45%, if that. Today's defenders aren't as big but they are much quicker and swarm, and it's hard to put a body on a whippet the size of a lion.


bob


.

[dboss]

game still not as fast as 60's Celtics. not even close

dboss

[swish]

Lots of shots in the 50'snd 60's with correspondingly lousy shooting percentages. Of course they could run back in the early years. Those were the no touchem years - Where endurance was a bi product of lack of physical contact - like comparing touch football with tackle football. Those 50's- 60's Celtic teams would be way over matched by the teams of the 80's onto the present - whether they crawled, walked or ran.

swish

[arambone]

[arambone]

[wideclyde]

Is a James Young highlight in the summer league similar to a James Young highlight in the D League?

If so, he should not have a roster spot again this season.

[arambone]

[beat]

Lots of shots in the 50'snd 60's with correspondingly lousy shooting percentages. Of course they could run back in the early years. Those were the no touchem years - Where endurance was a bi product of lack of physical contact - like comparing touch football with tackle football. Those 50's- 60's Celtic teams would be way over matched by the teams of the 80's onto the present - whether they crawled, walked or ran.

 swish

Like everything in sports.  That was then.....this is now.  As a kid I recall Bullet Bob Hayes was dubbed the worlds fastest human.  Now his time would probably not even get him on the US Olympic team.

That said if Hayes had all of the advances in training and nutrition and equipment that is available now.  Who knows how much faster he might have run.  I remember Jim Ryun setting the world record in the mile on a cinder track.

here he is setting the record back in 1967 at the U of Cal on their cinder track 3:51.1 it stood for 8 years



beat

[swish]

Lots of shots in the 50'snd 60's with correspondingly lousy shooting percentages. Of course they could run back in the early years. Those were the no touchem years - Where endurance was a bi product of lack of physical contact - like comparing touch football with tackle football. Those 50's- 60's Celtic teams would be way over matched by the teams of the 80's onto the present - whether they crawled, walked or ran.

 swish

Like everything in sports.  That was then.....this is now.  As a kid I recall Bullet Bob Hayes was dubbed the worlds fastest human.  Now his time would probably not even get him on the US Olympic team.

That said if Hayes had all of the advances in training and nutrition and equipment that is available now.  Who knows how much faster he might have run.  I remember Jim Ryun setting the world record in the mile on a cinder track.

here he is setting the record back in 1967 at the U of Cal on their cinder track 3:51.1  it stood for 8 years



beat

Did comparative times for the 100 meters at the 1972 Olympics vs the 2012 Olympics. Skipped the 1968 Olympics - 1st on artificial surface - because of the altitude factor. Borzov won with a time of 10.14. Hart who missed the race - had won the Olympic trials in 9.9 and was favored to win the race along with teammate Robinson but both were late for the race and were not entered. Bolt won the 2012 Olympic 100 meters with a time of 9.63. That translates to a 16.502 foot victory over Borzov and a 8.948 foot win over Hart.

swish

[Shamrock1000]

Lots of shots in the 50'snd 60's with correspondingly lousy shooting percentages. Of course they could run back in the early years. Those were the no touchem years - Where endurance was a bi product of lack of physical contact - like comparing touch football with tackle football. Those 50's- 60's Celtic teams would be way over matched by the teams of the 80's onto the present - whether they crawled, walked or ran.

 swish

Like everything in sports.  That was then.....this is now.  As a kid I recall Bullet Bob Hayes was dubbed the worlds fastest human.  Now his time would probably not even get him on the US Olympic team.

That said if Hayes had all of the advances in training and nutrition and equipment that is available now.  Who knows how much faster he might have run.  I remember Jim Ryun setting the world record in the mile on a cinder track.

here he is setting the record back in 1967 at the U of Cal on their cinder track 3:51.1  it stood for 8 years



beat

Did comparative times for the 100 meters at the 1972 Olympics vs the 2012 Olympics. Skipped the 1968 Olympics - 1st on artificial surface - because of the altitude factor. Borzov won with a time of 10.14. Hart who missed the race - had won the Olympic trials in 9.9 and was favored to win the  race along with teammate Robinson but both were late for the race and were not entered. Bolt won the 2012 Olympic 100 meters with a time of 9.63. That translates to a 16.502 foot victory over Borzov and a 8.948 foot win over Hart.

 swish

There is a Ted Talk by David Epstein addressing these types of questions. He opens by comparing Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt. Owens won the 100 in the 1936 olympics with a 10.2 second time. Bolt won the world's in 2013 with a 9.77 seconds. As Swish points out, that is a pretty big difference in a sprint (~14 feet behind). Indeed, Owen's would have come in last had he competed in the 2013 worlds. However, Owens was running on a cinder surface, without starting blocks. Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt. This is pretty amazing. Bolt is an absolute freak of nature, and he would have barely beat Owens. Consider also that Owens probably could not afford to spend all his time training, and the techniques back then were quite primitive. It drives me crazy when people think modern athletes performances are better because they have "evolved". The timescale of evolution is HUGE, not a few generations. Equipment, training, and nutrition has evolved, not people. The only real explanation for better and better performances are 1) better training/nutrition/equipment; and 2) more people grow up playing sports, so the chances of finding a freakishly talented person increase. The whole Ted Talk is great - you can watch it here:

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en#t-159202

[swish]

Lots of shots in the 50'snd 60's with correspondingly lousy shooting percentages. Of course they could run back in the early years. Those were the no touchem years - Where endurance was a bi product of lack of physical contact - like comparing touch football with tackle football. Those 50's- 60's Celtic teams would be way over matched by the teams of the 80's onto the present - whether they crawled, walked or ran.

 swish

Like everything in sports.  That was then.....this is now.  As a kid I recall Bullet Bob Hayes was dubbed the worlds fastest human.  Now his time would probably not even get him on the US Olympic team.

That said if Hayes had all of the advances in training and nutrition and equipment that is available now.  Who knows how much faster he might have run.  I remember Jim Ryun setting the world record in the mile on a cinder track.

here he is setting the record back in 1967 at the U of Cal on their cinder track 3:51.1  it stood for 8 years



beat

Did comparative times for the 100 meters at the 1972 Olympics vs the 2012 Olympics. Skipped the 1968 Olympics - 1st on artificial surface - because of the altitude factor. Borzov won with a time of 10.14. Hart who missed the race - had won the Olympic trials in 9.9 and was favored to win the  race along with teammate Robinson but both were late for the race and were not entered. Bolt won the 2012 Olympic 100 meters with a time of 9.63. That translates to a 16.502 foot victory over Borzov and a 8.948 foot win over Hart.

 swish

There is a Ted Talk by David Epstein addressing these types of questions. He opens by comparing Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt. Owens won the 100 in the 1936 olympics with a 10.2 second time. Bolt won the world's in 2013 with a 9.77 seconds. As Swish points out, that is a pretty big difference in a sprint (~14 feet behind). Indeed, Owen's would have come in last had he competed in the 2013 worlds. However, Owens was running on a cinder surface, without starting blocks. Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt. This is pretty amazing. Bolt is an absolute freak of nature, and he would have barely beat Owens. Consider also that Owens probably could not afford to spend all his time training, and the techniques back then were quite primitive. It drives me crazy when people think modern athletes performances are better because they have "evolved". The timescale of evolution is HUGE, not a few generations. Equipment, training, and nutrition has evolved, not people. The only real explanation for better and better performances are 1) better training/nutrition/equipment; and 2) more people grow up playing sports, so the chances of finding a freakishly talented person increase. The whole Ted Talk is great - you can watch it here:

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en#t-159202

"Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt."
Above statement sounds great but at this point in time is purely speculative. Owens the winner ran a 10.3 100 meters. Did they test out the knees of 2nd place finisher - Metcalf who ran a 10.4 - and the 3rd place finisher - Osendarpin who ran the 100 meters in 10.4 to see if they had "fast" joints that would have had them also running relatively close to Bolt. I don't know why the times are so much faster now - nor do I care whether its a biological or sociological or environmental or even a genetic reason. For me its all about the bottom line when comparing generations. I would also note that comparing times on cinder tracks vs artificial tracks may be a waste of time because I don't know of any study that has been able to make an excepted adjustment factor to bridge the time differences between the 2 surfaces.

swish

[Shamrock1000]

Lots of shots in the 50'snd 60's with correspondingly lousy shooting percentages. Of course they could run back in the early years. Those were the no touchem years - Where endurance was a bi product of lack of physical contact - like comparing touch football with tackle football. Those 50's- 60's Celtic teams would be way over matched by the teams of the 80's onto the present - whether they crawled, walked or ran.

 swish

Like everything in sports.  That was then.....this is now.  As a kid I recall Bullet Bob Hayes was dubbed the worlds fastest human.  Now his time would probably not even get him on the US Olympic team.

That said if Hayes had all of the advances in training and nutrition and equipment that is available now.  Who knows how much faster he might have run.  I remember Jim Ryun setting the world record in the mile on a cinder track.

here he is setting the record back in 1967 at the U of Cal on their cinder track 3:51.1  it stood for 8 years



beat

Did comparative times for the 100 meters at the 1972 Olympics vs the 2012 Olympics. Skipped the 1968 Olympics - 1st on artificial surface - because of the altitude factor. Borzov won with a time of 10.14. Hart who missed the race - had won the Olympic trials in 9.9 and was favored to win the  race along with teammate Robinson but both were late for the race and were not entered. Bolt won the 2012 Olympic 100 meters with a time of 9.63. That translates to a 16.502 foot victory over Borzov and a 8.948 foot win over Hart.

 swish

There is a Ted Talk by David Epstein addressing these types of questions. He opens by comparing Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt. Owens won the 100 in the 1936 olympics with a 10.2 second time. Bolt won the world's in 2013 with a 9.77 seconds. As Swish points out, that is a pretty big difference in a sprint (~14 feet behind). Indeed, Owen's would have come in last had he competed in the 2013 worlds. However, Owens was running on a cinder surface, without starting blocks. Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt. This is pretty amazing. Bolt is an absolute freak of nature, and he would have barely beat Owens. Consider also that Owens probably could not afford to spend all his time training, and the techniques back then were quite primitive. It drives me crazy when people think modern athletes performances are better because they have "evolved". The timescale of evolution is HUGE, not a few generations. Equipment, training, and nutrition has evolved, not people. The only real explanation for better and better performances are 1) better training/nutrition/equipment; and 2) more people grow up playing sports, so the chances of finding a freakishly talented person increase. The whole Ted Talk is great - you can watch it here:

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en#t-159202

  "Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt."
 Above statement sounds great but at this point in time is purely speculative. Owens the winner ran a 10.3 100 meters. Did they test out the knees of 2nd place finisher - Metcalf who ran a 10.4 - and  the 3rd place finisher - Osendarpin who ran the 100 meters in 10.4 to see if they had "fast" joints that would have had them also running relatively close to Bolt. I don't know why the times are so much faster now - nor do I care whether its a biological or sociological or environmental or even a genetic reason. For me its all about the bottom line when comparing generations. I would also note that comparing times on cinder tracks vs  artificial tracks may be a waste of time because I don't know of any study that has been able to make an excepted adjustment factor to bridge the time differences between the 2 surfaces.

  swish

 

The number I have heard is a 1.1% difference. Not sure where it comes from. Presumably the additional difference in the 100 m is the use of starting blocks. Regarding the other guys Owens ran against in 1936, I think the point is that they would also be competetive. Personally, I do find possible explanations for observed differences interseting. I am always interested in the mechanisms underlying progress in human endeavors.

[swish]

Lots of shots in the 50'snd 60's with correspondingly lousy shooting percentages. Of course they could run back in the early years. Those were the no touchem years - Where endurance was a bi product of lack of physical contact - like comparing touch football with tackle football. Those 50's- 60's Celtic teams would be way over matched by the teams of the 80's onto the present - whether they crawled, walked or ran.

 swish

Like everything in sports.  That was then.....this is now.  As a kid I recall Bullet Bob Hayes was dubbed the worlds fastest human.  Now his time would probably not even get him on the US Olympic team.

That said if Hayes had all of the advances in training and nutrition and equipment that is available now.  Who knows how much faster he might have run.  I remember Jim Ryun setting the world record in the mile on a cinder track.

here he is setting the record back in 1967 at the U of Cal on their cinder track 3:51.1  it stood for 8 years



beat

Did comparative times for the 100 meters at the 1972 Olympics vs the 2012 Olympics. Skipped the 1968 Olympics - 1st on artificial surface - because of the altitude factor. Borzov won with a time of 10.14. Hart who missed the race - had won the Olympic trials in 9.9 and was favored to win the  race along with teammate Robinson but both were late for the race and were not entered. Bolt won the 2012 Olympic 100 meters with a time of 9.63. That translates to a 16.502 foot victory over Borzov and a 8.948 foot win over Hart.

 swish

There is a Ted Talk by David Epstein addressing these types of questions. He opens by comparing Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt. Owens won the 100 in the 1936 olympics with a 10.2 second time. Bolt won the world's in 2013 with a 9.77 seconds. As Swish points out, that is a pretty big difference in a sprint (~14 feet behind). Indeed, Owen's would have come in last had he competed in the 2013 worlds. However, Owens was running on a cinder surface, without starting blocks. Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt. This is pretty amazing. Bolt is an absolute freak of nature, and he would have barely beat Owens. Consider also that Owens probably could not afford to spend all his time training, and the techniques back then were quite primitive. It drives me crazy when people think modern athletes performances are better because they have "evolved". The timescale of evolution is HUGE, not a few generations. Equipment, training, and nutrition has evolved, not people. The only real explanation for better and better performances are 1) better training/nutrition/equipment; and 2) more people grow up playing sports, so the chances of finding a freakishly talented person increase. The whole Ted Talk is great - you can watch it here:

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en#t-159202

  "Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt."
 Above statement sounds great but at this point in time is purely speculative. Owens the winner ran a 10.3 100 meters. Did they test out the knees of 2nd place finisher - Metcalf who ran a 10.4 - and  the 3rd place finisher - Osendarpin who ran the 100 meters in 10.4 to see if they had "fast" joints that would have had them also running relatively close to Bolt. I don't know why the times are so much faster now - nor do I care whether its a biological or sociological or environmental or even a genetic reason. For me its all about the bottom line when comparing generations. I would also note that comparing times on cinder tracks vs  artificial tracks may be a waste of time because I don't know of any study that has been able to make an excepted adjustment factor to bridge the time differences between the 2 surfaces.

  swish

 

The number I have heard is a 1.1% difference. Not sure where it comes from. Presumably the additional difference in the 100 m is the use of starting blocks. Regarding the other guys Owens ran against in 1936, I think the point is that they would also be competetive. Personally, I do find possible explanations for observed differences interseting. I am always interested in the mechanisms underlying progress in human endeavors.

Shamrock1000
You may have already read the below link which expresses speed in terms of race. It sure applies to track sprints, basketball and all the speed positions in football

http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/quokka_01.htm

swish

[Shamrock1000]

Lots of shots in the 50'snd 60's with correspondingly lousy shooting percentages. Of course they could run back in the early years. Those were the no touchem years - Where endurance was a bi product of lack of physical contact - like comparing touch football with tackle football. Those 50's- 60's Celtic teams would be way over matched by the teams of the 80's onto the present - whether they crawled, walked or ran.

 swish

Like everything in sports.  That was then.....this is now.  As a kid I recall Bullet Bob Hayes was dubbed the worlds fastest human.  Now his time would probably not even get him on the US Olympic team.

That said if Hayes had all of the advances in training and nutrition and equipment that is available now.  Who knows how much faster he might have run.  I remember Jim Ryun setting the world record in the mile on a cinder track.

here he is setting the record back in 1967 at the U of Cal on their cinder track 3:51.1  it stood for 8 years



beat

Did comparative times for the 100 meters at the 1972 Olympics vs the 2012 Olympics. Skipped the 1968 Olympics - 1st on artificial surface - because of the altitude factor. Borzov won with a time of 10.14. Hart who missed the race - had won the Olympic trials in 9.9 and was favored to win the  race along with teammate Robinson but both were late for the race and were not entered. Bolt won the 2012 Olympic 100 meters with a time of 9.63. That translates to a 16.502 foot victory over Borzov and a 8.948 foot win over Hart.

 swish

There is a Ted Talk by David Epstein addressing these types of questions. He opens by comparing Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt. Owens won the 100 in the 1936 olympics with a 10.2 second time. Bolt won the world's in 2013 with a 9.77 seconds. As Swish points out, that is a pretty big difference in a sprint (~14 feet behind). Indeed, Owen's would have come in last had he competed in the 2013 worlds. However, Owens was running on a cinder surface, without starting blocks. Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt. This is pretty amazing. Bolt is an absolute freak of nature, and he would have barely beat Owens. Consider also that Owens probably could not afford to spend all his time training, and the techniques back then were quite primitive. It drives me crazy when people think modern athletes performances are better because they have "evolved". The timescale of evolution is HUGE, not a few generations. Equipment, training, and nutrition has evolved, not people. The only real explanation for better and better performances are 1) better training/nutrition/equipment; and 2) more people grow up playing sports, so the chances of finding a freakishly talented person increase. The whole Ted Talk is great - you can watch it here:

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en#t-159202

  "Doing some sort of "biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints" indicates that had Jones run on a modern track with modern blocks, his time would have been good enough for second in the 2013 race, just barely behind Bolt."
 Above statement sounds great but at this point in time is purely speculative. Owens the winner ran a 10.3 100 meters. Did they test out the knees of 2nd place finisher - Metcalf who ran a 10.4 - and  the 3rd place finisher - Osendarpin who ran the 100 meters in 10.4 to see if they had "fast" joints that would have had them also running relatively close to Bolt. I don't know why the times are so much faster now - nor do I care whether its a biological or sociological or environmental or even a genetic reason. For me its all about the bottom line when comparing generations. I would also note that comparing times on cinder tracks vs  artificial tracks may be a waste of time because I don't know of any study that has been able to make an excepted adjustment factor to bridge the time differences between the 2 surfaces.

  swish

 

The number I have heard is a 1.1% difference. Not sure where it comes from. Presumably the additional difference in the 100 m is the use of starting blocks. Regarding the other guys Owens ran against in 1936, I think the point is that they would also be competetive. Personally, I do find possible explanations for observed differences interseting. I am always interested in the mechanisms underlying progress in human endeavors.

  Shamrock1000
You may have already read the below link which expresses speed in terms of race. It sure applies to track sprints, basketball and all the speed positions in football

  http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/quokka_01.htm

   swish

Hadn't seen this. Thanks for the link...

[Sponsored content]