POST GAME CLEVELAND

GAME STATS

SCORE – CELTICS - 91 / CLV - 97
REBOUNDS - CELTICS 42 /CLV 58.....Offensive - CELTICS 10 /CLV 15......Defensive - CELTICS 32/CLV 43
POINTS IN THE PAINT - CELTICS 38 /CLV 52
FAST BREAK POINTS - CELTICS 8 / CLV 15
FG - CELTICS - 36/89 ( 40.4 %) CLV 36/89 (40.4 %)
3PM - CELTICS - 6/22 (27.3 %) CLV 3/13 (23.1 %)
FTM - CELTICS - 13/22 (59.1%) CLV 22/26 (84.6 %)
TO - CELTICS 11 / CLV 14
ASSISTS - CELTICS 23 /CLV 16
STL - CELTICS 7 / CLV 5
BLK - CELTICS 7 / CLV 7
PF - CELTICS 24 / CLV 20
BENCH POINTS - CELTICS 40 / CLV 20
TOTAL TEAM TURNOVERS (Points off turnovers) – CELTICS 12 (18) /CLV 16 (23)

NEXT GAME SUNDAY - HOME - WASH - 6PM - CSNE/NBA LEAGUE PASS

POST GAME RECAP

ESPNBOSTON.COM

Rapid Reaction: Cavs 97, Celtics 91

By Chris Forsberg | ESPNBoston.com

BOSTON -- Rapid reaction after the Cleveland Cavaliers defeated the Boston Celtics 97-91 on Friday night at TD Garden:

THE NITTY GRITTY
Tristan Thompson posted a game-high 29 points and 17 rebounds, while Alonzo Gee added 16 points and 10 rebounds as the Cavaliers feasted on Boston's injury-depleted frontcourt while grabbing 58 rebounds overall (15 on the offensive glass for 19 second-chance points) on the night. Jeff Green scored a team-high 23 points on 8-of-13 shooting with nine rebounds and four assists, while Shavlik Randolph scored a career-high 16 points in a mere 13 minutes for Boston, which played without both Paul Pierce (sore right ankle) and Kevin Garnett (left ankle inflammation).

TURNING POINT
Nine days after the Celtics rallied from a 14-point deficit in the fourth quarter to stun the Cavaliers in Cleveland, it looked like we might see a repeat in Boston. The Celtics were down 14 with 9:19 to play when the hosts embarked on a 15-5 burst that trimmed their deficit to 4 after a Jason Terry 3-pointer with 5:46 to go. Thompson stopped the bleeding, however, with a third-chance dunk and Wayne Ellington added a jumper after a Boston turnover to push the lead back to eight. The Celtics never got closer than four the rest of the way.

FRIDAY NIGHT SHAV
A week removed from his breakthrough effort against the Hawks, Randolph made the most of foul-limited minutes. Randolph scored a career-high 16 points on 6-of-9 shooting to go along with seven rebounds, but fouled out after only 13 minutes of floor time (it was the first time he picked up six fouls in his career). The Celtics really missed his size.

TERRY TAGGED WITH FLAGRANT
Terry earned a flagrant-1 foul for ramming into C.J. Miles in the backcourt during the fourth quarter. Terry didn't appear to make a play for the ball and collided hard with Miles, sending both players sprawling. The timing wasn't ideal as it aided the Cavs on a 14-3 run that stretched their lead to 82-68 early in the final frame.

BRADLEY INJURY SCARE
Celtics guard Avery Bradley retreated to the locker room, escorted by trainer Ed Lacerte, with 3:18 remaining in the game. The obvious worry was his surgically-repaired shoulders, but the team announced he simply had a bruised left collarbone and he returned to the bench before the end of the game.

WHAT IT MEANS
The Celtics were unable to build some momentum after Wednesday's win over the Pistons, while the Cavs snapped a 10-game losing streak. The good news for Boston: the Knicks beat Milwaukee, keeping the Celtics 2½ games ahead of the Bucks. Boston has two more games on this four-game homestand with visits from Washington (Sunday) and Brooklyn (Wednesday).
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CSNE

Cavs snap 10-game losing streak

A.SHERROD BLAKLEY

BOSTON — The last time the Boston Celtics faced Cleveland, they pulled off a miraculous comeback with a buzzer-beating basket.

There would be no last-second shot on Wednesday, nor was there a Celtics victory as the Cleveland Cavaliers held on for a 97-91 win over the Celtics.

With the victory, Cleveland snapped a 10-game losing streak while the Celtics lost for the eighth time in their last 11 games.

Playing without Paul Pierce (sore right ankle) and Kevin Garnett (inflammation, left ankle), the Celtics got another injury scare in the fourth quarter when Avery Bradley had to leave with what appeared at first to be a shoulder-related injury.

Bradley missed all of training camp and the first 30 games of the season while recovering from surgery to both shoulders.

Although he did not re-enter the game, he was able to return to the bench with what team officials said was a bruised left collarbone.

Regardless of who steps on the floor, the expectation is that they will compete.

On Wednesday, few of the C's usual bench players stepped up their games with what was an increase in minutes.

Shavlik Randolph was the exception, however.

He scored a career-high 16 points to go with seven rebounds before fouling out.

Boston led by as many as eight points in the first half, but never seemed to put enough distance between themselves and the Cavs to be comfortable.

Keeping Cleveland close was the play of Tristan Thompson, who had a season-high 21 points against the Celtics earlier this season.

Thompson, who finished with a career-high 29 points along with 17 rebounds, had 21 points by the half.

Boston found itself on the short end of a 9-0 run in the third quarter and trailed, 64-62.

It was Randolph to the rescue.

After getting fouled after grabbing a defensive rebound, moments later Randolph was fouled going up for a shot. He made the first of two free throws to cut Cleveland's lead in half, 64-63.

The Cavs soon pushed their lead up to 68-63 following a pair of free throws after Randolph was whistled for his fifth personal foul with 3:19 to play in the third.

The Cavs continued to pull away courtesy of a 27-6 run in the third and fourth quarters that proved to be too much for the C's to overcome.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

WEEI 93.7 FM

RUNNING ON EMPTY: CAVS OUTMUSCLE SHORTHANDED CELTICS
By Mike Petraglia

Jordan Crawford (27) and the Celtics were off balance and off their game Friday night without captain Paul Pierce. (AP)

Life without Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett was ugly Friday night. Very ugly.

Second-year big man Tristan Thompson scored 29 points and grabbed 17 rebounds while the Celtics went ice cold in the second half and fell to the lowly Cavaliers, 97-91, Friday night at TD Garden. Pierce missed the game with a sore right ankle while Garnett missed his eighth straight game with inflammation in his left ankle. Cleveland won two of the three meetings this season between the two.

The Celtics fell to 39-37 on the season but did not lose any ground on eight-place Milwaukee, which lost to the Knicks in New York. Boston remains in seventh place in the Eastern Conference, two games ahead of the Bucks in the loss column. Boston has six games remaining, including two games on its current four-game homestand. Jeff Green led the Celtics with 23 points and nine rebounds.

In a first half of unknown and unlikely heroes, it was Tristan Thompson became the latest opposing big man to dominate the Celtics inside. Thompson

Thompson, the second-year player out of Texas, scored 21 points and hauled in 11 rebounds in the first two quarters, as the Cavaliers (23-52) erased an eight-point deficit early in the second quarter, using a 10-0 run to forge a 52-52 halftime tie.

Shav Randolph had the best first half of his NBA career, scoring a career-high 13 points and grabbing five rebounds in the first 15 minutes of the game. But as has often been the case in his short stint with the Celtics, foul trouble limited his time on the court as he picked up three first-half fouls.

The Celtics built a seven-point lead, 62-55, on an Avery Bradley three with 8:13 left in the third. But then the wheels fell off as the Celtics went ice cold. Boston was just 6-for-27 (27.3 percent) from the field. Cleveland went on a 19-3 run to take a 74-65 lead before Jordan Crawford hit a three to cut Cleveland’s lead to 74-68 heading into the fourth.

But Cleveland scored the first eight points of the fourth to take a 14-point lead. Randolph picked up two fouls in a minute in the third quarter and then fouled out with 6:57 left in the fourth. Randolph finished with a career-high 16 points and seven rebounds.

Jason Terry hit a baseline three with 5:46 left to bring Boston within four, 87-83, as the crowd became a factor again. But Thompson’s put-back dunk with five minutes left answered the Celtics run, putting Cleveland back up by six.

With 3:18 left in the game and the Celtics down eight, 91-83, Bradley left the game and headed for the locker room with trainer Ed Lacerte. He suffered a bruised left collar bone and returned to the bench with two minutes left in regulation but did not play. With 2:09 left in the game Green completed a three-point play to draw Boston within four again, 91-87 but an easy alley-oop layup by Tyler Zeller and a jumper by Kyrie Irving with 1:22 left put Cleveland up, 95-87.

The Celtics are off Saturday before returning to action at home on Sunday night (6 p.m.) against the Wizards at TD Garden. Boston concludes its four-game homestand on Wednesday night. For more, visit the Celtics team page at weei.com/celtics.

112288

Well when your best big is Randolph, you are vulnerable when hes not on the floor in foul trouble or even on the floor, our bigs sure can make other bigs look dominant. Bass had some moments, but is always overmatched physically. Randolph and KG can definitely play together, KG will make Randolph even better. Loved watching AB's defense on Irving, he was in his face all night or chasing him down furiously, has there ever been a defender who sacrificed his body like him? Dave Cowens comes to mind even though they played different positions. Love what I'm seeing from T Will, his defense on the point was also very good.

This game was meaningless, glad KG and Pierce got their rest, the young guys got more time to work, T Will can really help us going forward and Crawford actually had some very good passes. Jeff Green had a routine game for him, showing his scoring acumen and out of world athleticism, alot of high flying and hes getting a midrange game too, love that hes embracing a carry the team mentality. Very few SF's can do so many things both ends like him as his defense has really picked up......no question we would have beaten Miami last year with this version of Jeff Green.

Bob,

Look no more then 50+ points in the paint by Cleveland. We have 0 interior defense and the guards and forwards are not shutting down the lanes nor the paint.

112288

bobheckler wrote:Didn't see the game, but a few notes from the boxscore. I'd appreciate anybody who can add some meat onto these or tell me how the stats don't tell the real story. They often don't.

1. Bass had another 50% shooting night. It looks like he is finally breaking out of the season-long slump he has been in. Bass also had 2 blocks. He has been playing better for a while now. He is a role player though.

2. Shavlik with 7 boards, 4 offensive, 16 points and 6 fouls in 13 minutes. Nice motor, very foul-prone. Rookie-itis, or just under-muscled for the wars underneath in the NBA? He had 2 fouls attempting to take charges where he got there in plenty of time, but barely had his feet in the circle. 2 fouls were horrible calls against him that were not deserved. Its rookie itis

3. T-Will with another well-rounded boxscore, but 3 TOs and only 1 assist isn't that good for our pseudo-backup point guard. Twill turned the ball over more than he had been doing but his on the ball defense was pretty good and he covered Irving pretty well a few time. He delivered the ball quite a few times to a open shooter right where it needed to be delivered for a good shot, only problem was no one was hitting the shot. He was not rushing anything on the point. He controlled the ball.

4. Crawford had a horrible shooting night, but that didn't stop him from taking 14 fgas. Crawford also had some super nice assists, i mean findings some lanes to pass that were not easy to see. Could have had a couple more assists as well to add to the 5 he had. He had zero turnovers which is hard to believe since he looks so far out of control nearly every time he has the ball. He had numerous open three pointers that should have been a catch and shoot but would fake it and put the ball on the floor. He should shoot that shot every time.

5. Jeff Green with an efficient 23 points on 8-13, 9 rebounds and 4 assists. The new Paul Pierce. This was a game he needed to get up 20 shots in. 6 of his points came when we we had already lost control of the game and Cleveland wasn't contesting as hard. Got in foul trouble and that hurt because later it hurt him on the defensive end. He should be our leading scorer next year. Good 1-2 punch with PP. Hard question- would JG developed like this with Rondo controlling the ball? I don't think so. Jeff can create for himself if there is time on the clock. Rondo is going to have to get rid of the ball earlier next year.

6. Our starting unit, depleted as it was, lost to the Cav's starting unit. I'm saying that based upon the fact that every Celtic starter had a negative +/-. I only use that stat for starters, since they play a lot of time together as a unit. Bench players mix and match with starters and sometimes play against the other team's starters and sometimes against the other team's second units. I think this had a lot to do with Wilcox. If Randolph had been starting I think our starters numbers would have been better. Cleveland had their way inside as no one contested them on the first unit. Of course Shavs fouls hurt.

7. Tristan Thompson had a career night. Bass undersized and Wilcox on hustles in spurts.


bob


.

Bob here is some meat to your post.

bob I loved watching AB's defense on Irving, he forced a few airballs on him, blocked one of his shots and was quite disruptive, looking forward to seeing him go at John Wall tonite. Without KG were taking small ball to new heights, we should call it puny ball. We should have kept Collins, Crawford can't shoot, oh right hes a volume shooter. I'd take Gerald Green over him anyday.

Cow, since I think I'm the only one who has been mentioning that Crawford is a volume shooter, I assume your sarcastic crack about his being a volume shooter was aimed directly at me. I lay that to your being too young to appreciate what volume shooting can accomplish, although I could swear you're one of the people who frequently complains how few shots the Celtics take versus the competition.

There have been entire teams that shot just slightly above 40%, averaged as much as 120 points per game, gave up as much as 110 points per game, and won championships. Obviously, these Celtics are not in that mold; but that doesn't mean they can't benefit from having a role player who has a volume shooting mentality if he's used correctly. The trick is for the team and the player to get on the same page so as to get him enough good shots that it's less necessary for him to create his own hurried shot—which is where he often gets into trouble.

Elsewhere on this thread, someone (without looking,I think it may have been Tardust) mentioned that, in the Cleveland game, Crawford gave up a number of wide open three-point attempts and put the ball on the floor instead. I may be crazy, but I think that exhibited more than a little shot discipline, just as his five Celtics-leading assists and other good passes that led to missed shots suggested a team player's approach to the game. Moreover, as BobH indicated, the Celtics bench (with Crawford playing the second-most minutes) readily outscored their Cavs counterparts, while the Celtics starters trailed their counterparts. Isn't out-scoring the opponent the objective of the game?

I have to believe you were kidding when you said you'd take Gerald Green over Jordan Crawford. Are you actually admitting that you'd rather have a player with a low basketball IQ than
someone who also shoots a lot but is far more discriminating when it comes to playing a team game?

Sam

Sam were gonna have to agree to disagree, sorry your points are valid, you can slant stats anyway you want and make a compelling case. My eyes tell me Crawfords shooting mechanics are terrible because hes naturally off balance, hes too herky jerky and he should be behind T Will and Lee on our depth chart....his shooting percentages must be going south as I've seen brick after brick lately

Cow,

Using statistics to make a point does not, in and of itself, constitute "slanting" the statistics. Please tell me specifically how I "slanted" statistics in my previous post.

Sam

Sam I realize everybody uses stats at some level on this board, so do I at times, though I probably use them less than most as I'm an eye guy. Now Crawford had a decent game last night, for once he didn't jack up a ton of bricks which he did at least a bunch of games recently. I'm from the school that you go to the hot hand and milk the cow, if your shot is off, especially if your a role player, don't keep on dominating the ball, help the team in other ways. Back to stats, I think Crawford had a recent game he shot the team out of the game, went 3-14 I think. Crawford is out of control alot, Reds Army even had an article called Enemy Chatter where they check opposing teams blogs and alot of people shared my same opinions of Crawfords game. Crawford must be doing something right though as Doc still plays him more minutes than T Will who if I was coaching would be getting those minutes right now.

Further more I know you make a living off stats and I've enjoyed your posts for years and your stats can have compelling points as can alot of posters who like to breakdown the game and compare all the stats. However there is so much information out there, not just you, but anyone can analyze and slant the stats to prove their respective points. Even Steve when he was interviewing Red years ago was trying to prove a point how with increased FG% there were less rebounds available, so since Moses Malone at that time was getting a greater percentage of his teams rebounds even though overall it was less than say Russell or Chamberlain, it was still more of what was available percentage wise-you with me? Red said simply "No fockin way, stats are for losers"

I was disapointed that Williams didn't get any run last nite. There has been a lot of talk lately about him playing well and then he only gets a token appearance. I sure would like to see him handling the ball with the starters that were on the floor last nite. AB's shooting lately has been bad. Hope he gets it straightened out some time quick.

Cow,

One of the frustrating things about posting is when the
person one is posting with responds about everything except what the main
point was.

My question was pretty simply put: How did I (not Steve, not Hollinger, not Red, not the Man in the Moon, but me, Sam) "slant" stats in my second-previous post?

In case you're not aware, to "slant" stats means to bias or misuse stats—usually intentionally. It is not at all the same as "using" stats.

Don't forget that I'm actually the anti-stat monitor on this board, in terms of stats are misused. Accordingly, I take particular pains to use stats in the most appropriate manner I can muster. When someone implies that I'm doing otherwise, that person had better have a pretty friggin' good reason. When I asked about your reason, I got nothing except a lot of tangential stuff in response.

If you recall, this conversation was originally about one thing—your sarcastic use of the term "volume shooter." I used precisely one stat (two typical scores taken from Basketball Reference) to indicate that there are circumstances under which volume basketball can work. Seemed like d pretty direct relationship between that stat and my claim. Instead, I could have pointed to the Knicks and Nuggets as two teams having some success with it.

My question still stands completely unanswered. How did I slant that stat?

Sam

sam

Okay you talk about volume, well Crawfords FG% sucks, you want to argue or slant that, go ahead.....

....his shot selection was bad too, hopefully he'll get that harnessed.

oh and I love the Nuggets, exciting up and coming team, wish we could get Cory Brewer

Cow,

Okay, I get it. When one has absolutely no answer to a challenge, one simply evades the challenge. I'd hate to have that be my m.o. But to each his own.

Go Celtics!

Sam

sam no stats? guess were both right, so what was the challenge, is Crawford really this important of a discussion? what more do I have to say about Crawford? guess he took alot of bad shots that led to bricks when KG or Pierce or both were out, guess thats what happens when role players overstep their bounds? I thought he got out of control, contributing to the loss, he wasn't the only one as many others have also pointed out. You wrote about volume basketball that I didn't witness or understand, fine. I'm not gonna argue that point, don't know what your after?

Cow,

The challenge involved your refusal after refusal to respond to my question about exactly how I was "slanting" stats. And that was an outgrowth of what I told you I felt was a sarcastic remark about volume shooting that couldn't have been directed at mocking anyone else but me.

Basketball discussions come and go, but the most important things in life are usually personal in nature. If you don't get it, you don't get it. I'm sure the world will continue to turn, and we'll still be friends.

Sam

sam

I just reread it again, I meant I know you have the ability to slant stats, you have done that on occasion, I pointed that out in another thread, maybe I didn't use the word slant before, sorry if that bothers you. Frankly I was expecting you to blitz me with more stats, then you really never did, thats what I meant, that you have the ability to back up your points very thoroughly with stats....that are of your choosing, thats all. What was Perks rebounding avg in 2010 again?

cow

Cow,

If you want to know what Perk's rebounding average was in 2010, first of all, you must decide whether you mean the season of 2009-10 or the season of 2010-11. If you mean 2010-11, then you have to decide whether you mean his rebounding average (1) while with the Celtics or (2) while with the Thunder or (3) for the entire season. Sorry to be so precise. That's what statisticians do.

Then you can look it up yourself in Basketball Reference. I have no idea what that has to do with this conversation. If you pointed out something, in another thread, which thread was it? How did I respond?" Exactly how did I misrepresent, misuse, or bias stats? (Sorry to be so precise. That's what statisticians do.)

Of course I sometimes use statistics to support my points because I feel it's important to back up my posts as concretely as possible rather than simply offering an unsupported opinion. Choosing the most relevant stats I can find is NOT "slanting" statistics. On occasions, when I have looked up stats I think are appropriate to a discussion, and the stats don't support my position, I alter or drop the position according. That's exactly what happened recently, when I posted stats that refuted my position. (I believe it may have been in a conversation with Swish about the number of fouls teams of the past committed compared with today's teams.)

I document my stats so that others will be able to evaluate the stats' appropriateness and contradict my conclusions if they choose to, perhaps offering statistics of their own.

But the one thing I never do is to deceive knowingly, through some statistical manipulation or misrepresentation or smoke screen. Never! That would be slanting the stats, which is what you're still accusing me of (after I've carefully explained the implications of that term to you). Actually, it would also make me a hypocrite because I bash people like Hollinger about the inappropriate use of stats. I could understand your not understanding what the term means statistically; but, after I've carefully explained it to you, your continued use of the term takes on a very intentional meaning.

I'm sure many members will be asking themselves why I persist in prolonging this discussion. The answer is that my reputation for statistical integrity is extremely important to me. Even a strong hint that people think I'm deceitful in slanting my use of stats could be grounds for my discontinuing my use of stats on the board in favor of simply posting unsupported opinions.

Sam

Sam

I couldn't really give a shit about Perks rebounding avg, he brought a resolute toughness that combined with KG and Rondo being the best in the game defensively at their positions that made our defense of that recent era the best for that period of time. Even though I love how Jeff Green has grown and is a future building block going forward, I still miss that hard nosed style of D that separated us from everybody else. Now theres plenty of posters that can point out stats that show Perks shortcomings.....whopdedamndoo.

So I'm not saying you or meaning to pick on you, I realize everyone here is a passionate fan, maybe its me, that I think stats can be overrated at times and many can slant stats to prove their points, isn't that what Hollinger does? whatever he does, he must be doing something right to morph into an assistant GM at any level. Must be a few gullible owners out there. Anyway hope we kick his teams ass and no hard feelings.

cow

Cow,

I realize you aren’t a statistician, and I thought one more stab at an explanation might help you to gain a better perspective on our debate. So here goes.

Just because you dislike the fact that stats are sometimes available to refute your opinion doesn't in any way mean that the stats are necessarily bogus or that people are deceitfully selective in referring to them. I've always agreed that stats aren't everything, and frankly I'm far better as evaluating basketball with my own eyes than with stats. In fact, my favorite elements of basketball involve nuances such as rhythms, chemistry, momentum and runs, etc.

Let's take your most recent detour from the subject at hand—Perk. Here’s what my observation has told me:

• It was never Perk in isolation who was great defensively. It was Perk and KG together who were great defensively. As KG's time on the floor diminishes (assuming it doesn't end altogether this summer), Perk's lack of agility would have become more and more of a problem with the Celtics, since he has difficulty with agility and over-fouling. It was good that Perk could move guys like Howard away from the basket, and it was good that he was an imposing force confronting opponents as they cut to the hoop. But, without someone like KG to be a consistent free safety behind him, Perk was pretty limited in other rudiments of defense.

On offense, it's easy to cite some of Perk’s shortcomings:

• I liked the fact that he could set a solid pick, but that was somewhat offset by his tendency to be a foul magnet as a result of moving on a lot of his
picks.

• When the Celtics of the past swung the ball and the rock came to Perk, he repeatedly hesitated—sometimes even bouncing the ball while he tried to figure
out what to do with it. That messed up the timing of a lot of plays.

• The evolution of this team seems to be moving in the direction of a more constant pushing of the ball. That's certainly not Perk's game. Yes, he might help start a break by rebounding defensively, but I’ve never considered him a particularly good outlet passer; and he has virtually no aptitude for acting as a effective trailer on the break. Moreover, I believe he would be physically challenged on a steady diet of pushing the ball.

• As an offensive rebounder, he usually flailed with one hand—almost like giving it lip service while he wound up trailing the pack on defense. He'd occasionally get an offensive rebound but often brought the ball down and was stripped.

• He never developed a consistent shot outside of four feet from the basket. When he got the ball under the offensive basket, he almost never powered it through, which he certainly had
the ability to do. He seemed to satisfy himself with throwing up his hands and getting fouled, despite the fact that a dunk would have brought a sure two points (if not an “and one”)—which was never a sure thing when he was taking free throws.

• Some players have just one main offensive attribute, which makes them a one-trick pony on offense. Perk came dangerously close to being a no-trick pony on offense.

Perk teamed up with KG to create a tandem that was good enough to win one title (for which I am very grateful, as it’s the reason the Celtics are now ahead of the Lakers). But, although
the Celtics’ offense, powered largely by the Three Amigos, was adequate enough to win games, it sometimes seemed as though they were doing it in spite of Perk.

I wouldn't want to build a defense around someone as limited as Perk unless the team also had a KG-type or Ibaka-type "free safety." Maybe Shav could be that guy, but I'm not at all sure of that. As things stand right now, it's very questionable as to whether a limited Perk—especially without KG—could represent an impact player, with more positives than negatives, moving into the future for the Celtics. I believe Jeff Green could be a key impact player in a number of ways.

N stats were used in the writing of these paragraphs. It's equally easy for me to post using stats or simply using what I've observed. And here's a little secret as to why. Although you may think “some people” search around for convenient stats that prove their point, I'm not one of them because that's not what a good statistician or researcher does. A good statistician/researcher has (or is presented with) an idea (let's call it a hypothesis) and then works to find the most valid possible evidence to determine whether OR NOT the hypothesis is supported. The evidence may be stats or observation or articles or video or whatever.

That's how I work. The stats aren't the main thing; the idea (or hypothesis) is the main thing. It just so happens that, in a large percentage of cases, my instincts (hypotheses) are supported by the most valid stats I can locate. (Just lucky I guess; or perhaps I have a tiny smattering of knowledge of the game.) When the stats don’t support my
hypothesis, I never try other stats in hopes that I’ll stumble onto a stat or two that will support my hypothesis. In fact, that would be stupid, because the stats that had originally
disproved my hypothesis would be available to anyone who chose to refute me. If my hypothesis is disproven, I’m not afraid to admit it, and I either drop it or alter it based on what I’ve
learned from the evidence.

Perhaps this explanation will help to equip you, so that you can actually respond to the fact that I feel my statistical integrity has been called into question by you, rather than going off on yet another of your tangents involving Collins, Crawford, KG, Pierce, Red, Steve, Corey Brewer, Hollinger, or even Perk (whom I used above only as an illustration of how I work—not because I have any interest in rehashing the past with you).

As you said, no hard feelings.

Sam

Sam

I'm sorry if I insulted you, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, now since were talking about Perk, let me add my spin or slant on how stats can be misleading. I believe you pointed out to me that the 09-10 Celtics were last in rebounding, I didn't know that. Now was that team really that weak a rebounding team? not compared to this years team in my eyes. That 09-10 team had a very high FG%, which leads to less offensive rebounding opportunities and they emphasized transition defense as we know that team could lockdown in the halfcourt. Furthermore KG had just comeback from an injury that required surgery the year before that made him miss the playoffs, his body was not right for much of the year, adding to worse numbers all around and on the boards. So all of those factors added to the weaker rebounding numbers, but that was still a physical team that got it together enough to get to the Finals that year and that teams strength was still its defense and rebounding, which can go hand in hand in my book. We know what losing Perk did to the team in game 7 as we got killed on the boards in a bitter game that still stings me to this day. I don't know the exact stats, but I would guess that game 7 had the biggest rebound differential of all the games in that series and the biggest most obvious reason for that was Perks absence.

No hard feelings, didn't mean to single you out.

cow

Cow,

As I very clearly said, I am solely interested in the personal slight and not reallyl interested in the very predictable Perk tangent. But I'll be polite enough to oblige you.

Since you chose to refer to the rebound differential stat (which you pulled vaguely out of thin air), I'll come back with a couple of my own which have the advantage of being real, not guesses:

• In the five games in which Perk played regular minutes, the Celtics averaged 37.2 rebounds. In the two games in which Perk played a total of only five minutes, the Celtics averaged 39.5 rebounds (on the Lakers' court).

• Four Celtics had 8 or more rebounds in Game 7—in every case a higher total than Perk averaged in the 5 games in which he played regular minutes: KG 10, Davis 9; Sheed 8; Rondo 8.

• In the five games in which Perk played regular minutes, the Lakers averaged 42.0% shooting. In the two games in which Perk played a total of only five minutes, the Lakers averaged 37.0% shooting (on the Lakers' court).

Hey, you opened up the statistical Pandora's Box this time. Live with it.

To be fair, it's possible—but nothing like a sure thing—that Perk's presence could have swung the final score by the requisite 5 points in Game 7. Whether he'd have contributed more than he'd have detracted would be debatable. I doubt that he would have swelled the Celtics' rebound total significantly by replacing Sheed and his 8 boards.

The Lakers took 37 free throws (to 17 for the Celts), and a lot of the Lakers' freebies came as a result of taking the ball to the hoop. Would Perk's presence have dissuaded the Lakers from
so many forays to the basket without swelling the Lakers' free throw total even more? Who knows?

One advantage the Celtics did have in that game was shooting 88.2% from the free throw line (compared with 67.6% for the Lakers. Would the Celtics' free throw percentage
have risen or fallen with Perk in the lineup? Who knows?

We'll never know whether the Celtics would really have won that game with Perk in the lineup. But I don't think it's anything like a slam dunk either way.

Thanks for opening yourself up to a statistical fusillade.

Yup, no hard feelings.

Sam

Sam I like my chances with Perk, so what was the rebounding differential in Game 7?