Straight from Sam's Shoulder (SSS)

Virtually everything about pro basketball has a context. The Grizzlies game should be a perfect reminder that not all game performances can or should be evaluated on the same criteria. Because there are different categories of games.

One of the categories that I'm sure frustrates all of us is what I call the "baited trap"—the kind of game in which circumstances dictate that a team is just ripe to be upset.

One such circumstance occurs in the last game of a tough road trip. It's so easy for players to get a little ahead of themselves in looking forward to seeing the family, having some home cooking, enjoying familiar training facilities, etc.

A second such circumstance deals with playing a team that everyone (including the other team) knows is not as good as your team. It's just plain tougher to get "up" for playing an obviously inferior team. After all, players are human beings. And the underdogs are likely to be highly motivated and loose because they have nothing to lose.

A third such circumstance involves the second game of a back-to-back. Not only is fatigue likely to be a factor, but maintaining a high level of focus is also much more difficult on the second of two consecutive nights.

And a fourth such circumstance entails the anti-climax after just having won a high-profile contest. At least if you've lost the big game, you may have a little extra anger and motivation on your side; if you've won, such negatives are not available to spur you on.

The Grizzlies game presented the Celtics with a triple whammy, in the form of three of these four conditions (excepting only the back-to-back situation). Between Christmas and March of last season, we could practically have made book that the Celtics would have lost such a game. I believe the fact that they fought the ennui and ugliness of this matchup and came through with a victory is significant.

To me, in terms of determining what this team is really made of, this was one of the most important wins of this young season because of the difficult odds that faced the Celtics.

Sam

gyso,

Is that right? Jeez, maybe I finally got something right. Usually I'd catch that show, but I'm in DC without a Comcast to my name. Thanks for the info.

Sam

Take This on Faith

Among his other attributes, Today's Boston Herald suggests that Shaq knows at least a little about practically everything. He obviously has the ability to reach out and touch people in many ways. Lebron James learned one of those ways a few games ago.

Now it comes to light that he has parlayed his knowledge of languages and his respect for a variety of religions into quite a relationship with Semih Erden, starting from the first day of training camp. And, during a season when Semih has potentially preoccupying shoulder woes on a continuing basis, Shaq's friendship seems to be an ongoing source of relief in Semih's efforts to settle in with the Celtics.

While it would not be possible for Shaq to become one of my favorite players or people, there's definitely room on my personal "most intriguing" roster. And this is just one more intangible he brings to the Celtics.

Sam

http://bostonherald.com/sports/basketball/celtics/view.bg?&articleid=1297508&format=&page=2&listingType=celt#articleFull

I've come top really like Shaq this season, enough to forgive him for leaving the Magic way back when.

He's a character for sure, W. And there's little question that he has injected a spirit into this team that Sheed never could do.

Sam

I'm really enjoying watching the frontline of Pierce-KG-Shaq,even this older version is fun to watch,imagine if this was say 04?Shaq is still very crafty and a load of an enforcer.

Crossing the Bar (with Apologies to Alfred Lord Tennyson)

Games like the two previous contests are important because they point out possible points of vulnerability.

Games like the most recent one are even more important because they clearly indicate what this team is capable of.

Last year, I tried (against fairly strenuous opposition) to establish that the capabilities of the team were revealed by the early run of something like 21-5 (I can't recall the exact record). That's when they set the bar. I maintained that, regardless of their mid-season flops (which I felt were due largely to discontinuity), all they had to do by April was to regain their early stride (and health) in order to be contenders.

Same thing this season. Despite being weakened at a position that was expected to be a major strength (center), and even missing their primary catalyst (Rondo), the Hawks game (in conjunction with the team's performances against the Heat and in Oklahoma City) helps to set the bar for April. Frankly, I think that bar is now higher than at any time since KG, Ray et al. arrived.

What remains is to learn how to marshal their resources more consistently, regain their health once again, and maintain their focus as best they can until April.

I've said repeatedly that I didn't think it was fair to begin evaluating this team until at least the 20-game mark. Well, thanks largely to the fact that Delonte has been integrated more quickly than I thought would be the case, I've already about seen enough to be satisfied as to what this team can attain.

That's certainly not a prediction because all sorts of roadblocks can intervene (mainly injuries. Yes, the jury is still out on Jermaine O'Neal. Yes, I'd like to see them get a younger center with defensive skills as a safeguard against injuries to their older center corps. Yes, I don't know how much they'll be able to count on Perk to regain his previous form this season. Yes, I'm hoping against hope that Rondo's current problem, coupled with his foot situation, won't become chronic. Yes, I'm always concerned about the starters' minutes (which I believe have gone down since Delonte entered the lineup). Yes, I'm very interested in seeing Glen Davis become a more consistent monster.

But they've shown me that, if all (or even most) of their systems are "go," they can wreak havoc during the playoffs. In the meantime, they will probably go through periods of injury, playing down to the competition, and other symptoms of ennui; and it will be our difficult task to endure those down times. But both the team and we have one mandate in common: to keep our eyes set firmly on that bar in anticipation of the April home stretch.

For the moment, all this talk about bars has made me want to visit one here in Nassau; but I guess it would be more appropriate to wait until at least noon.

Go Celtics!

Sam

Sam, my colleague e-mailed Wyc a video about proper treatment of plantar fascitis with no response. When I told him Rondo now had a hamstring problem, he said, no wonder. With his foot problem, Rondo's running on his toes more and stressing his hamstrings. He emailed Wyc again yesterday.

W

oh man how true. compensating for one pain and running different brings a whole new set of muscles into play. We are fine with RR sitting a bit.

beat

Beat, Rondo will get well and by the playoffs we'll be crushing opponents. Shaq will be licking his chops when we play the Lakers in the finals.
Poor Miami. Udonis Haslem is out for a long time, and now they're even weaker upfront. I feel so sorry for them. Boo Hoo.

W

Apparently they signed Dampier. But still they are a team with many holes.

beat

W,

Wyc always responded to emails the last time I gave it a try, but that was at least a year ago. A month ago, I emailed him about the possibility of retiring Larry Siegfried's number, and he didn't respond.

Sam

Sam

Great thread. Let the wisdom flow

Sam, I'll have Butch e-mail Wyc again. Butch is my 6'3" colleague who played high school basketball with Michael Jordan. Butch was a senior when MJ was a freshman and got cut from the basketball team. He met MJ 15 years ago when he was playing minor league baseball here in Sarasota and said, "Michael, remember me? I was the last white boy who beat you one on one."

MJ answered, "Wanna play me now?"

That's a great story W. Really a great story.

Sam

So, did he play him????

Butch was wise enough to quit while he was ahead.

Sam, I think the story about Sam Jones in the Tom Heinsohn post is even better.

The rather scary Celtics ineffectiveness down the stretch of the Portland game naturally gives rise to questions on how such a talented team could allow something like that to happen. Winnable games could easily be lost through less pronounced futility at the end.

On defense, I believe the opponent becomes desperate, and the sheer desperation and adrenalin (combined with a healthy ration of talent) sometimes negates even a good defensive effort by the Celtics.

But I think this Celtics team will live and die off its offense more so than any other Garnett team. And, even if the other team picks up its offense in crunch time, the ability to come close to offsetting their offensive thrust will more than ensure victory for the Celts.

Perhaps to some extent, there's a little complacency that leads them to play the clock and to shift into garbage time mentality too soon. But I think the problem goes beyond that and is actually a function of the talent they possess.

It seems to me that, when they're up by double digits with three minutes to go, the Celtics fall into the trap of placing too much focus on seeking "the dagger." A "dagger" often involves a low-percentage shot or spectacular feed which, when it works, simply breaks the opponents' backs, partly because of its audaciousness. But, when it doesn't work, it can lead to scoring turnarounds of 4 to 6 points in just a few seconds.

And the Celtics, above most teams, are susceptible to that trap because of their supreme confidence in their ability to make the difficult shot or feed. That's why both Paul and Ray airballed long shots before Ray finally hit the clincher in the Portland game. They were looking for the dagger. It's why the Celtics started gambling on challenging feeds that the Blazers picked off by playing in the passing lanes.

There's no question that the well-placed dagger virtually guarantees victory, thrills a team's fans (including Geno), represents a sort of victorious signature, and expedites garbage time and a few minutes of extra rest for rotation guys. But a dagger mentality can represent a crap shoot, particularly when the opponent's natural talent is newly reinforced by the adrenalin born of desperation.

If I had to identify the number one difference between the Russell Celtics and the current team, it would be that any daggers used by the old guys were much higher-percentage plays. Cousy used to become more conservative, abandoning the razzle dazzle stuff, as big games wore on. (That's why video of the razzle dazzle is so scarce—because they videod mainly the big games.) There was no three-point line to offer the temptation of a low-percentage bomb.

The daggers wielded by Russell teams were mostly fortuitous outgrowths of business as usual—not the result of deliberately changing what had been working for them by seeking out daggers. That's why Heinsohn can't understand why, when today's Celtics have another team down, they tend to slack off rather than using the other team's necks as accelerators.

It's also one of the myriad nuances that combined, for Russ et al, to comprise a "perfect storm" approach to the game that was unequaled by any other team of that or any later era. It's just another consistent ingredient of an unmatched approach to the game that one doesn't see in the grainy video highlights and the stats that some people rely on to form their "expert" opinions of something they never experienced first-hand. (Although you actually can see the "foot-on-the-neck" phenomenon in the 1966 Celtics-Royals Game Five video that I've touted several times—including another coming shortly).

Go Celtics!

Sam

A foot on the neck could have been a PP and 1 going to the rim. Or a post up shot and foul or just about anything better than what they did. It's hard for some of us to watch that (especially Tommy) these days. Today's players think the dagger is a three from downtown. How about another Rondo layup? Love the C's,... hate that about them.

Hoop

Much as I love Ray, let's face it, after the night that he had, that was one lucky shot he hit. This situation of blowing leads is going to catch up with them and they are going to really get stung badly. I would much rather watch them wipe out a team like Portland so that they have no confidence the next time
they play. The more they lose leads to teams like this, the better the "elite"
teams learn of the Celtics soft spot. And, they are all to blame, not just one or two.

Rosalie

Each game is result onto itself and bears little meaning on the next. As Sam as mentioned these guys leave the previous result behind them and move ahead. ( perhaps reflecting on things a little )

Every team has a run in them and we allowed one that nearly cost us a game. Getting the best record would be great. I'm no to alarmed about the Portland game. Wins are wins. We'll see how we come out tonight! (and finish)

beat

Dboss, I definitely think there is too often a dagger mentality near the end of games, trying to substitute the big killer splash for grinding it out during crunch time.

Feeding a wide open Ray was not so much a high percentage play as it was a case of the Law of Averages working in the Celtics' favor. They tried enough long-range daggers so that one eventually worked in the nick of time. The previous airball by Ray was not a high percentage play. Nor was the previous airball by Paul. They were abortive attempts at planting a dagger from outside rather than going to the effort of working the ball into the paint. And the key word is "working."

Believe me, I consider myself a student of the rhythms of the pro basketball game. I understand the relationship of players' psyches to the phenomena of runs and momentum. But I don't have to go any further than last night's Chicago game to identify the opposite of the "dagger mentality." Last night, they continued working the ball down low for really high percentage shots. I felt Davis' block was a dagger based on effort, as was the inside success down the stretch.

And I'm convinced that, as a rule, daggers based on effort have vastly greater likelihood of success than dagger attempts based on ease and convenience.

Sam