POST GAME DENVER

Two winnable games, two ugly losses. The team is searching for leadership and Rondo's is certainly not providing it. 6 TO'S TONIGHT! Makes me wonder what if we traded him. He is exasperating. One game brilliant, next game out of control. He was not the only one. The whole team looks like it needs a vacation!

Hope we can find a big soon, for one Ray is operating at a handicap. He has not had a proper screen set for him to shoot by a big since Perkins has left.

While we are at it, all though Danny did a good job on trade day, he and management had to know what was going down with JON and especially Wilcox who gets tested regularly for his heart condition to get caught in a situation we now find ourselves in. No Kaman, do not plan on a long playoff run.

NEXT GAME MONDAY @ ATLANTA 7:30 pm CSNE

HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY TO ALL!!!!!!!!

112288

POST GAME RECAP WEEI 850

CELTICS COMEBACK RUNS OUT OF GAS IN DENVER
By: Alex Speier


0 Comments
A furious fourth-quarter comeback by the Celtics fell short in Denver, as the C's lost their second straight game while falling to 2-3 on their current seven-game roadtrip in losing to the Nuggets, 98-91.

The Celtics trailed by as many as 15 points in the game and 14 points early in the fourth quarter, but a 17-5 run brought the Celtics back to within two points at 87-85 with just over four minutes remaining. However, the Nuggets responded with five quick unanswered points to take a 94-87 lead that they would never relinquish.

In defeat, the Celtics had strong performances from Rajon Rondo (12 points, 16 assists, 5 rebounds) and Kevin Garnett (22 points on 9-of-12 shooting along with nine rebounds and five assists). Paul Pierce (22 points), however, fouled out, while Ray Allen scored just seven points on 3-of-9 shooting, including an 0-for-5 night from 3-point range.

The Nuggets were led by Danilo Gallinari (20 points) and Kenneth Faried (18 points on a perfect 5-for-5 from the floor and 8-for-8 from the line, along with 16 rebounds).

After two losses in as many nights, the Celtics now fly to Atlanta to take on the Hawks on Monday. The Celtics fell to 23-21, 1 1/2 games behind the 76ers for first place in the Atlantic Division.

To no one in particular:

It seems as though the quality of Rondo's performance lies in the eye of the beholder. 112288 thought he pretty much sucked, and Alex Speier (who?) thought he played a "strong" game.

Personally, I was very unhappy with the Celtics' halfcourt game, but it may be too simplistic to lay the fault largely with Rondo. One of the most irritating situations is when he just holds or pounds the ball and is finally forced into a low-percentage pass or shot. But I find myself wondering how much of that may be due to the rest of the team standing around. If there are no available passing angles, a good team does something to create them.

The Nuggets were a great example of that last night. They had not one but multiple guys moving to open spots—sometimes simultaneously, sometimes in sequence. They set not one but two successive picks on a number of occasions. And, almost every time a guy wound up open, it was for a shot or a move at which he excelled. In short, they were all being placed in positions to succeed.

Aside from Ray, the Celtics seem to have devolved into a team that seldom moves without the ball. And Ray's curls are now so predictable—and so bereft of solid picks to help him gain some separation—that he is tightly covered in a large percentage of those situations.

So certainly Rondo is culpable, but so is the rest of the team—big time!

The Celtics are becoming an almost-but-not-quite team.

• They're frequently forced into hero shots that almost-but-not-quite hit the mark.

• They flail around under the boards and typically get one hand on the ball, almost-but-not-quite as many as the two hands as an opponent clamps on the rock.

• They almost-but-hot-quite get to long rebounds at both ends of the court.

• They almost-but-not-quite win the 50-50 battles.

• They perform some flying swan leaps of beauty, almost-but-not-quite reaching the three-pointers shot by uncovered opponents in the corner or on the perimeter.

• Ray (or, even more so, Pietrus) almost-but-not-quite has time to set his legs for balanced three-point attempts.

• And, most important, the team is almost-but-not-quite winning games by tiring themselves out with late rallies that are almost-but-not-quite sufficient. The fourth quarter in the thin air of Denver is no time for the only extended effort of the night.

They need to morph from an almost-but-not-quite team to an in-the-nick-of-time team. That's what they were when they won the championship. That's what creates and sustains rhythm. I saw only two Celtics playing a step ahead rather than a step behind last night: Kevin Garnett and Marquis Daniels. They need five guys out there who play anticipatory basketball. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a matter of being younger as much as a matter of playing smarter.

Come on Celts. There's still time to get it together. You're showing flashes on this grueling trip. Finish off the trip with some extra effort, and end it with some momentum.

Sam

Sam,

Rondo's stats are misleading when you look at them at first blush they look good. 12pts and 16 assists. However 6 turnovers and a minus 3. Coming out of a timeout with 10 seconds to play in the third, there was no set play to get Ray or Pierce the ball for the final shot. Rondo moves to top of key and throws a 3 pointer and misses. This drives me crazy. His percentage from 15 ft. out sucks and he is allowed to take the last shot!

However there is plenty of blame to go around. Down 2 with less the 3 minutes and KG takes a ridiculous shot off balance from the side. Where the hell did ball movement go to for a good shot that Doc keeps on preaching?

Your observation and comments about the team is spot on! Many of your points about why Rondo may not be performing as he could are very good in particular about other teammates standing around so he has few options.

However if he is the quarterback of the team as point guard you need to show some leadership and motivate guys to respond, unless of course they have already tuned him out. I read a few weeks back that Bass told Rondo to shut the F.... up while they were on the court and he was barking at them.

112288

I hate it when the Celtics lose on St. Patty's Day. There oughta be a law...

As 112288 touched on, this was a game where statistics don't tell you the real story. What bothers me the most about this game was the lack of ganas. No fire in the belly, no sense of urgency, no action that suggested that they really wanted this game and would do what it takes to earn a win. One would think that would be there, after the Sacto game, but I guess not.

They are making Danny Ainge look like a sentimental fool. He said they wouldn't trade any of the core players for 60c on the dollar, but they're playing like 60c on the dollar. Every starter had a negative +/-. Again.

There wasn't much I liked about this game. Not our defense, not our motion, not our energy, not our ganas, not our desire. That's depressing.

1. Rondo had 10 assists in the 1st half and we went into the locker room down by 13. So much for stats. One bone-headed decision after another. Still chasing his man around the court rather than staying between him and the basket.

2. Pierce tried to do something out there, but he was getting eaten alive by Gallinari and Faried on the defensive end. He fouled out with 3:50 left in the 4th. We scored 6 points in the last 3:50 (4fts by KG and a J by Bass). We've seen this happen again and again all season, these 4th quarter cold spells. On this trip we saw it in LA and last night. We're the veterans. We're the ones with the championship experience. The last few minutes of the game should be ours, and it's not. If our starters can't execute in crunch time, then what's the advantage of having them versus youth?

3. KG came to play. Thank God for KG. The man is a warrior. 9-12 for 22 points. Mozgov couldn't handle him, nor could anybody else. Stats aside, he showed ganas. He came to play and win. He played like it was important to him. Too bad it wasn't contagious.

4. This was the worst game I've seen Bass play this year. 2-9 for 6 points and only 3 rebounds. He was invisible out there and he got overwhelmed on the glass by rookie Kenneth Faried. He's usually pretty steady, he's only had a few bad games this year, so I'm inclined to cut him a little slack, but he stunk last night.

5. Well, Faried's name has been mentioned a few times already, so I should probably talk about him. Virtually all his points came off of offensive boards and running the floor. 18 points on 5-5 with 8-8 from the line (he shoots 69% for the season), 16 rebounds (6 of them offensive). Boy, when a 69% ft shooter is 8-8, you know he's focused and you're in trouble. We're the worst, or almost worst, rebounding team in the league. We sure looked like it last night. We were down 28-12 at the half. We lost 46-27. Last night rebounding trumped assists. Too many second chances. You don't have to be a good shooting team or a efficient offensive team to score off of putbacks. We do a good job of defending the harder % shots and then give up too many easy points off of offensive rebounds.

6. We had trouble with Gallinari in NY and I was happy to see him get out of the East. A typical Euro-softy on defense he's very tough to stop on offense. Shoots from anywhere and likes to drive to the hoop. He got Pierce into foul trouble in the 1st half and Faried finished him off in the 2nd.

7. Marquis Daniels was resurrected for this game and I thought he looked good. The rumor I posted the other day said he was going to be bought out. Not yet anyway. A few mistakes, due to rust, but Daniels still can deliver the coherent offense we've seen him do so often. Doc said he's going to shorten the rotation. So, what's the decision on Q vs Sasha?

8. Another underwhelming game by Pietrus. He's not the only one this game, but that still doesn't make it better.

9. I've noticed that when the Celtics run a fast break, Rondo races down the middle and the other players run to the 3pt line. Pietrus, in particular, is guilty of this but Sasha does it too, as does Ray. Fastbreaks are about making the scarce defenders commit. Make them choose between stopping the ball or playing the pass and then make them pay for making the wrong choice (executed correctly, either choice is the wrong one). When you run to the 3pt line, you're not forcing them to choose. It's a no brainer, you stop the ball since the ball is going to the iron and you take a chance on the long range 3ptr. It's the smart choice, not a wrong choice. I've been seeing a lot of poor fundamentals by veteran Celtic players lately. Are they tuning Doc out?

10. Three more blocks for Steamer. We're short, physically and depth-wise. Play him more Doc. He's earning it.

We clawed back from 17 down in the 3rd to just down 2 at 3:50 left in the 4th, when Pierce fouled out. Then we collapsed. All that hard work for naught. To be fair, a lot of the comeback came from Gallinari not touching the ball, Afflalo (who hurt us in the 1st half) going cold and Al Harrington having a bad 4th quarter (in the 4th quarter he was 1-6, 1 turnover) and not so much us doing good things.

Another opportunity to tie Philly in the loss column and we blew it. This is important. Winning the division is the difference between playing Indiana in the 1st round or Miami.

bob

.

FYI

Where Brandon Bass told Rajon Rondo to "Shut the bleep up!"

Few NBA players bring it every game, but Rondo plays with at least one of them: Garnett. Rondo has the model right before him, if only he can look past his stubbornness, moodiness and deep, often destructive, pride. Those "off" nights are why his name can't be placed on that "untouchable" list reserved for the very elite in the league. Talent is a gift, but consistency is an acquired trait. The kid is making strides, but he's not there yet. He still gets caught up in the mano-a-mano moments that often come back to bite you. His courtside manner still grates on his teammates at times, as it did Sunday when he kept chirping at Brandon Bass until his exasperated teammate turned and said, "Shut the [expletive] up!" Rondo, expressionless, merely turned away. ESPN Boston -...

112288

I learned something following the NY Giants this year, regular season don't mean squat, look how shorthaned we are, before if 2 of the 3 Amigoes played well, we'd win cause enough of the rest of team was in place......now we don't have the depth, so relying on all 3 for their A game plus Rondo is not the best method for success. The Giants had numerous injuries and eventually when they all came back, the defense clicked, we still won without our starting MLB and CB.

We need JON especially now that Wilcox is done, just put some kind of wrist brace on and play, its our last hurrah and its his left wrist, just don't take any unneccessary charges if you can. Steamer seems adequate for 15 min a game. Start giving JJJ minutes, hes got length and a decent midrange shot, you've got to get him ready NOW for the bigger games later....what other choice do we have? gone for good are those days of yesterday when with Perk we were the guys with the hard hats that could out physical anyone down low, was so much fun to watch.

112288,

Don't get me wrong, I think Rondo played about the worst game a PG can play while posting a serious double-double. I seldom base anyone's performance on his stats. And I make it a point to ignore any argument about the pros and cons of an individual player based on the +/- stat.

The tidbit about Bass and Rondo is interesting, and frankly I'm not surprised, although I view Bass as anything but a malcontent. I have felt, all season long (and much of last season), that there were things going on behind the scenes that would surprise, if not appall, us.

A predominately veteran team is acutely aware of the difference between playing with a sense of joy and playing with a sense of ennui (or worse). They'd be crazy not to pick the joyous route if they had that option. I'm concerned that the option may not exist for this year's Celtics as things stand. Maybe picking up a Kamen would help their mechanics on the floor, but I somehow believe there's an attitudinal dilemma that, even though it's being shielded from the public, is depriving this team of the requisite energy and motivation to get on top of its game and stay there.

Who knows? Maybe I'm reading too much into things. Perhaps all that's required is a decent winning streak and the advent of a decent big man. I hope such is the case and that these two eventualities will soon be linked. And the Celtics will continue to have my undying support no matter what!

Sam

Sam said

And the Celtics will continue to have my undying support no matter what!

think this about sizes up this board
certainly speaks for me

beat

Hi,
I didn't watch the game, so - no comments.
Thanks all for their comments of the game.
I looked at the score box - what's going on with MD: he played almost 20 min. If it were a week ago I'd think DA and Doc show him off for a possible trade. But why now? I thought he's about to be bought out, isn't he?

AK

AK,

As nearly as I can figure, Doc was rather desperate for another "look" to offer the Nuggets, particularly with Pierce in foul trouble. The Celtics were pretty much sucking offensively and defensively, and Doc may have felt that Quis represents a better balance of those two attributes than Sasha does.

Whatever Doc's reasoning in giving Quis a shot, I thought Quis earned his extended use, right into crunch time (with Pierce out). More than many players on the team, Quis tends not to overreact, and he took the ball to the hole much better than most of the Celtics did. I actually thought he was one of the most important pieces of the comeback.

That may mean nothing when it comes to future use. Presumably, Pierce will not be so susceptible to foul trouble as he was with an injured ankle in the Nuggests game. (I'm not certain how many people knew that Paul had stepped on a Kings' player's foot near the end of the previous game and had turned his ankle.) And, if they had been playing a star SF, Sasha might have been in there for his defense. Who knows?

I'm glad Tommy gave Quis the Tommy Award at the end of the game. We've gotten to expect recent consistency from KG, but Quis really showed his professionalism by being ready and becoming an instant factor as soon as he hit the floor.

Sam

Sam,

I think your on to something with your comment about attitude. I felt this was already apparent at the beginning of the season when Rondo was out some games with an injury. The "joy of playing" was visible especially but not only with Pierce. And if memory serves me, they won most of those games.

Sam,

You may be right in your observation of the team in general. I am not sure if you remember a few years back 3-4, KG got pissed at Rondo and grabbed him with one hand around the throat. It was caught on tape.

Who knows but we all will be rooting for our men in green the remainder of the season and the playoffs! Go Celtics!

112288

Berlin and 112288,

I'm anything but a doom and gloom person with regard to the Celtics. In fact, I'm usually described as being overly optimistic regarding the team. I believe in hoping for the very best and trying to be realistic about anything that may be happening to prevent that from occurring.

More often than not, I find the answer in lack of chemistry, which typically stems directly from my old friend, lack of continuity. That factor, I feel, was particularly operative with the Celtics during the past two seasons. And both times, they got it together to a much greater extent after they gained greater continuity. (Last year, the Rondo injury was a crippler in the playoffs.)

This year, they've also had continuity problems. And, although they're recently been playing with a consistent (though undermanned) rotation, I believe it has been difficult for them to take maximum advantage of any continuity because of lack of practice time. But somehow, I don't think the problems relate mainly to continuity this season.

Sure, it's as if the Three Amigos are probably about to graduate and go their separate ways. Frankly, I'd assume that the prospect of parting company would give them motivation for one last supreme effort. But, instead of getting their ducks in order, it almost seems as if KG, Paul and Ray have become lame ducks while a new order is taking over. And I can't help but feeling that the emerging balance of power is not a comfortable one.

Especially scary for me is the fact that, although KG is performing like a true championship and is displaying all kinds of leadership, I'm not seeing the results of that leadership take hold as in the past. Rather than circling the wagons and banding together to confront adversity, the Celtics seem more inclined to try to win games separately. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule, but they're all too sporadic; and the exceptions don't seem to be potent enough to inspire them to seek more of the same on a consistent basis.

I find myself wondering what Doc's REAL take is on all of this. He's noted as an outstanding handler of personnel. Is it possible that Doc's an immovable object and Rondo's an impenetrable force? Could that be why we're so frequently aware of rumors surrounding Rondo's status with the team?

Whatever may be going on, the organization is doing a masterful job of keeping it in-house. In anticipation of a possible free agent frenzy, the Celtics could really be crippled by the spread of negative murmurs throughout the league

Here's hoping we'll soon see evidence of that last supreme effort. There's always hope.

Sam

I think Doc needs to play more Steamer, Moore, Johnson and Bradley, as well as Quis. Limit starters to less than 30 mpg, especially this time of year, and morale might improve. Starters wouldn't have to climb a mountain every night, and the bench would be sharper. Ray isn't getting his picks, but he's lost a half step on D, so when he isn't hitting, he's a (-). Coming off the bench, I think he might get open more easily. Anyway, love reading this board. Go Celts!

Hawk,

I would like Moore and Johnson to play more too. I think the problem with Ray is he does not have a wide body like Perkins to set his screens any more and he is rushed to take his shot. We ae talking fractions of a second more, but that is the difference between success and failure.

112288

hawksnestbeach wrote:I think Doc needs to play more Steamer, Moore, Johnson and Bradley, as well as Quis. Limit starters to less than 30 mpg, especially this time of year, and morale might improve. Starters wouldn't have to climb a mountain every night, and the bench would be sharper. Ray isn't getting his picks, but he's lost a half step on D, so when he isn't hitting, he's a (-). Coming off the bench, I think he might get open more easily. Anyway, love reading this board. Go Celts!

hawk,

Welcome to the board! Hope to see more posts from you.

A shake-up wouldn't hurt, the way they're playing now, but it would definitely affect chemistry and that would hurt.

Kinda damned if we do damned if we don't.

bob

.

First, Hawksnest, a hearty welcome to this forum. I hope you'll continue to post early and often and that (if you can free up the time) you'll try posting on our Game-on Threads. It's fun to share thoughts after the game, but the Game-on Thread offers a different kind of shared experience as we collectively rejoice in the highs and endure lows of game action.

Hawk, if you're suggesting more time for Johnson and Moore because you think they might elevate the performance of the team, that likelihood seems extremely low to me. They've gone through most of the season out of the roster mainstream and can only occasionally be counted upon to make a good play. We've seen enough of them to know that, especially in this practice-deprived season, they're not likely to be impact players at this stage of their careers.

In the cases of Stiemsma and Bradley, each of them has a special skill that is severely lacking on the team. In fact, Bradley has two outstanding skills—his defensive pressure and his ability to get to the hoop, especially along the baseline. And Steamer's special skill is guarding the basket on the defensive end. If the Celtics had veterans who offered similar talents, I think those veterans would be playing the bulk of the minutes, because the contributions of Stiemsma and Brad tend to be sporadic rather than consistent.

If you're calling for more minutes for Johnson and Moore because you feel the Celtics should basically surrender this season and begin developing talent for the future, well that's certainly one way in which they could go.

But, in terms of trying to be competitive this season, this team was set up so its strength would come primarily from veterans. The Celtics are unlikely to have a prayer at legitimate contention unless the veterans follow KG's lead and get their collective act together, including enhanced chemistry, rhythm and effort. Eighteen minutes a game is too much to sit Ray and Paul on the bench on a consistent basis. They're the team's scoring meal tickets, and extended time for vastly less experienced players would be extremely unlikely to replace those two assets with high-level offsetting capabilities.

Perhaps you're suggesting a 30-minute limitation because you feel Doc's running Pierce and Ray into the ground. That line of thinking would certainly be understandable. But, as I've said several times on this board, many of the Celtics' problems have arisen right out of the starting gate, when they should be least tired. Conversely, the bulk of their serious comebacks have happened later in the game when they should be most tired. Heck, they even came back in the fourth quarter in the thin air of Denver. Both Paul and Ray are playing an average of 34+ minutes per night—sometimes more, sometimes less. That doesn't really seem unrealistic.

One thing Red Auerbach used to do very occasionally, if the starters got off to a lousy start, was suddenly to take all of them out and replace them with second-teamers—sometimes for an extended stretch. He'd typically give the starters one timeout to get their act in gear; and, if they didn't, they were summarily gone two minutes later. And it appeared that he wouldn't even have to say another word of rebuke to them. While he wouldn't admit publicly that he was trying to "show up" the starters by their wholesale replacement, he was obviously taking dead aim on their pride. More often than not, the second half carnage inflicted by Russell and Friends qualified as deadly force. Red knew that the second-teamers (since only several of them were future hall-of-famers) might lose further ground. But Red was willing to risk losing a battle, because Red was always, always, always about the war.

While I wouldn't expect Doc to follow Red's example, I do find it intellectually interesting to conjecture whether this team has the kind of collective pride that would be required for this strategy to work. Frankly, I'm not sensing it in their approach to most games–especially in their all-too-frequent tendency to look lethargic at the outset while they throw up jumper after jumper.

For this team to have any kind of shot, I believe they have to harness their resources and use their start-of-game energy to race out to an early lead and make the other team play catchup throughout most (if not all) of the game. The adrenalin rush and team rhythm earned by gaining the early lead, coupled with the other team's debilitating chore of constantly playing catchup, may be the best possible formula for minimizing a Celtics energy deficit as the game proceeds.

Alternatively, they might consider trying the new nitrogen cryogenic "cooling" chamber being used by the Phoenix Suns (described by 112288 in another thread). I'd love to try out that concept.......as long as I could be permitted the layered look—like five pairs of long johns, 17 blankets, 12 comforters, and the entire roster of the Radio City Music Hall Rockettes hugging me tightly.

Sam

sam wrote:112288,

Don't get me wrong, I think Rondo played about the worst game a PG can play while posting a serious double-double. I seldom base anyone's performance on his stats. And I make it a point to ignore any argument about the pros and cons of an individual player based on the +/- stat.

The tidbit about Bass and Rondo is interesting, and frankly I'm not surprised, although I view Bass as anything but a malcontent. I have felt, all season long (and much of last season), that there were things going on behind the scenes that would surprise, if not appall, us.

A predominately veteran team is acutely aware of the difference between playing with a sense of joy and playing with a sense of ennui (or worse). They'd be crazy not to pick the joyous route if they had that option. I'm concerned that the option may not exist for this year's Celtics as things stand. Maybe picking up a Kamen would help their mechanics on the floor, but I somehow believe there's an attitudinal dilemma that, even though it's being shielded from the public, is depriving this team of the requisite energy and motivation to get on top of its game and stay there.

Who knows? Maybe I'm reading too much into things. Perhaps all that's required is a decent winning streak and the advent of a decent big man. I hope such is the case and that these two eventualities will soon be linked. And the Celtics will continue to have my undying support no matter what!

Sam

sam,

When I quote +/- stats it is usually, although I admit not solely, for starters. That's because starters play most of their minutes "as a unit". True, there is some dilution of that as the game progresses and there's one starter and 4 subs or 2 starters and 3 subs, but in the beginning of the 1st and 3rd quarters there are nice chunks of them playing together. So, I feel it might be ok to consider their +/- vs the opposing starters. The opposing starters are in the same boat, since very few teams completely "platoon" their subs, so their starters will be playing with their subs too after those chunks of time together as a starting unit. I do not attach much weight at all to subs +/- stats, since they could be playing with almost anybody but I confess there must be times of intellectual weakness and frustration.

bob

.

Bob,

My concern about the invalidity of the +/- stat extends solely to using it to evaluate individuals. I sometimes use +/- to evaluate the performance of the starters as a unit—usually comparing that figure to the performance of the bench as a unit. I haven't done it as much this season as Doc is deviating much more than before in terms mixing units to contain two starters and three bench players or two bench players and three starters.

At the present time, I can't think of a single starter who consistently escapes Doc's current propensity to mix starters and reserves. So I simply ignore discussions that use the +/- stat to evaluate individuals.

Ironically, I might have been the first person to calculate the +/- stat with respect to pro basketball. I started to do so in the mid-1960s, probably because I saw the stat used for hockey, and I still have many, many scorecards displaying those stats. I had season tickets in those days, and it was a real pain to score the game the traditional way plus keeping the +/- stat plus consuming the delicacy of choice plus screaminig and gesturing plus trying to sear into my memory every second of every game, including anything happening during timeouts.

After a while, I noticed that Russell's and Havlicek's +/- figures were (not-so-mysteriously) almost identical to the Celtics' margins of victory or loss because they played most of the games' minutes. Then I noticed guys like Tom Thacker, Mal Graham and Toby Kimball getting elevated +/- ratings, and I realized it had been because they were substituted for core players who were in foul trouble or were injured.

So, by the time the Russell Era ended, I was convinced of the inappropriateness of the stat to evaluate individuals, and I will never deviate from that stance. In some games, it very well may be a perfect indicator of a player's performance; in other games, it may not. The problem is that one never knows when and how to discriminate between these two scenarios.

I have a Sam's Celtics Forum World Premier Exclusive to share with you. I'm willing to bet that no one else in the world has these data—the +/- stats from the "Balloon Game" in 1969.

THE WINNERS:
Sam Jones +14
Emmette Bryant +2
John Havlicek +2 (played entire game)
Bill Russell +2 (played entire game)
Bailey Howell +1
Don Nelson -4
Larry Siegfried -9

The Losers
Tom Hawkins +11
Mel Counts +5
Johnny Egan +1
Jerry West -2 (played entire game)
Elgin Baylor -5
Wilt Chamberlain -7
Keith Erickson -13

Would you say that Sam Jones played a superlative game while the rest of the Celtics pretty much ranged from mediocre to crap? And obviously Wilt should have exited the game much sooner than he did in favor of the master, Mel Counts.

Hey, at least you have to admit that I don't screw around by offering just any old evidence.

Sam

Now that Denver has Manning they're really going to be tough the next time we play them.

What's that?

QB...not PF?

Oh...sorry...wrong board...wrong year...

Sam

Your +- stats that game also hold up the decision by VanBredakoff to keep Mel Counts in that game dispite Wilt wanting to go back in it in the final minutes.

beat

Yes, Beat. In fact, based on the +/- stats, Counts should have played the entire game instead of Wilt.

And why isn't Tom Hawkins in the Hall of Fame instead of that bum, Elgin Baylor?

I love stats! They just warm the cockles of my cockeyed heart!

Sam

Sam Jones +14
Emmette Bryant +2
John Havlicek +2 (played entire game)
Bill Russell +2 (played entire game)
Bailey Howell +1
Don Nelson -4
Larry Siegfried -9

Sam

question on the above stats if you add all the numbers after the C's you end up with a + 8. Being that those 7 were the only players that played wouldn't the total have to be a +2

Or is my math thinking way off base somehow

when you add the lakers you end up with a -10

If you or someone can explain that I'd love to hear it. Just seems as though we should end up with a +2 total and the lakers end up with a -2.


Sam

Just checked a recent NBA box score that showed the Wizard loosing by 5. I added uo the players for the wiz and got a total of -25 which actually in thinking about it makes sense since 5 players are on the court and the average was a -5

With that thinking I believe you must have missed 1 hoop somewhere as the C's total actually should have been a +10 to account for the 2 point win.

Anyway if I am totally wrong or way off someone let me know.

beat

beat wrote:Sam Jones +14
Emmette Bryant +2
John Havlicek +2 (played entire game)
Bill Russell +2 (played entire game)
Bailey Howell +1
Don Nelson -4
Larry Siegfried -9

Sam

question on the above stats if you add all the numbers after the C's you end up with a + 8. Being that those 7 were the only players that played wouldn't the total have to be a +2

Or is my math thinking way off base somehow

when you add the lakers you end up with a -10

If you or someone can explain that I'd love to hear it. Just seems as though we should end up with a +2 total and the lakers end up with a -2.


Sam

Just checked a recent NBA box score that showed the Wizard loosing by 5. I added uo the players for the wiz and got a total of -25 which actually in thinking about it makes sense since 5 players are on the court and the average was a -5

With that thinking I believe you must have missed 1 hoop somewhere as the C's total actually should have been a +10 to account for the 2 point win.

Anyway if I am totally wrong or way off someone let me know.

beat

Beat,

Sam forgot to include +2 for the leprechaun on Nelson's shot. Easy to overlook.

Outside wrote:

beat wrote:Sam Jones +14
Emmette Bryant +2
John Havlicek +2 (played entire game)
Bill Russell +2 (played entire game)
Bailey Howell +1
Don Nelson -4
Larry Siegfried -9

Sam

question on the above stats if you add all the numbers after the C's you end up with a + 8. Being that those 7 were the only players that played wouldn't the total have to be a +2

Or is my math thinking way off base somehow

when you add the lakers you end up with a -10

If you or someone can explain that I'd love to hear it. Just seems as though we should end up with a +2 total and the lakers end up with a -2.


Sam

Just checked a recent NBA box score that showed the Wizard loosing by 5. I added uo the players for the wiz and got a total of -25 which actually in thinking about it makes sense since 5 players are on the court and the average was a -5

With that thinking I believe you must have missed 1 hoop somewhere as the C's total actually should have been a +10 to account for the 2 point win.

Anyway if I am totally wrong or way off someone let me know.

beat

Beat,

Sam forgot to include +2 for the leprechaun on Nelson's shot. Easy to overlook.

Outside

Makes sense to me and that in of itself is scary!

beat