Not a "glimmer" but a "bummer"

A couple of weeks ago Sam developed a thread that was for 'glimmers' in this second season as positive things that could become trends for the 2014-15 Celtics season.
He later specified that a guy getting some big stats in any one particular game really would not be considered a 'glimmer'.

I have been thinking all day about what to call such trends for the Celtics that might not be quite so positive. In sports, sometimes, a team needs to correct things that are not going real well in order to take positive strides forward just as much as it needs to continue to build off the positive stuff. Anyway, not sure that I have the best term/name for negative tends, so feel free to find a more creative term.

The first thing that comes to my mind is this maddening concept of taking huge leads against almost every team and then letting such games get back to where the other team can either snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat or at the least add a bunch of gray hairs to young Coach Stevens head before he should have so many.

I count seven losses to date and another 4 wins that have 'almost' been lost that fall into this category in less than one fourth of the season. Today was another one of those 'almost' lost games and it never should have been so.

With a lot of faith in Stevens and his staff, I am sure that they are looking at this more than we probably are, but this is a trend that needs correcting.

It's certainly an area of concern.

Brad's main problem now is he's very slow to adjust to the changes in momentum. When the other team is mounting a comeback, it's often combined with the fact that the C's are not playing good defense, and either making a lot of turnovers or just not executing their offense properly. He needs to identify these trends sooner rather than later.



KJ

Clyde,

So I gather "bummer" is the term you were talking about.  Sounds appropriate to me.

Sam

Wide

Did anyone think we were going to win a ton of games anyway?

In virtually every game teams go on runs be it early late or somewhere in the middle. Just the way many games go.

Would be nice to find a way to hold a lead I agree but teams for years have been trying to figure that one out and no one has done so yet.
Yesterday Washington hit some bombs to begin their surge, some were open looks but a couple were at least somewhat contested. For the most part during that run we had OK looks but didn't hit them, that happens.

But we did not fold and finally pulled it out with a little run at the end of our own.

Important thing about runs...getting the first one is nice, if you don't then getting one to close a gap is second best, but getting the last one to win is the best, regardless of the way things went prior. Washington has a few cagey vets, we have not so much. Personally if I was Washington I'd have hacked Rondo a bit during the final 2 minutes, I'll be surprised if teams don't try that if they are down a couple points late.

Also mentioned about a go to guy in the past, well Bradley took a couple rather big shots yesterday first was sooooo close but moments later without hesitation he drained it from virtually the same spot. Wasn't the game winner but gave us breathing room and Washington never got closer than 4 again. Maybe he can be that guy to hit the big shot?

And KJ

I don't think it so much Brad slow to react, players need to do that, when other teams step up the pressure we need to respond. Again as I said above NBA games are for the most part all about runs. I'd still rather get out to the good start than not however most games are not won in the first half anyway. We are finishing a bit better and looking at the standings......a low seed in the playoffs is not that far of a stretch. Just imagine how much a playoff series will help this team for the future years.



beat

beat,

I understand your theory of "runs" and it would be nice to be able to be the team that makes the last of the runs during any one game, but the idea of the Celtics getting out to such big leads on so many nights and then haveing to scratch and claw just to "hang on" at the end of the game bothers me.

If a team makes a "run" and closes, say, an eight point lead that is one thing. Such a situation may show that the team who had the lead really wasn't doing any really 'special' to only have that eight point lead as eight points in the NBA can certainly be only three possessions. But, when a team has shown to be able to get fifteen to twenty five point leads as the Celtics have in many games (including the 25 point lead yesterday) they have had to have been doing something pretty 'special' to get those leads.

If you can get leads as big as the Celtics have been getting, it bothers me that they seem to get away from what got them those leads and let the games become winnable for the opponents. It especially bothers me that such actions have happened far too many times so far this year. It is now a trend that begs for some answers.

Back to answer your first question about whether I thought that the Cs would win many games this year....I think that they have shown that the talent is much better than last year or they would not have so many big, early-game leads which has surprised me somewhat. But, now with the talent showing better than I originally anticipated, yes, they should win many more games than last year.

If the talent and the coaching systems can get you such big leads (almost every night) I will gladly raise my expectations for more wins this season which will only speed up the total rebuilding effort that was started when Pierce and Garnett were traded two summers ago.

Brad is rotating 10 guys in these games.  It is fustrating to see big leads evaporate but part of that reflects the collective inexperience that this team has in playing with different combinations on the court.

Also it is importsant to note that the 3 point shot is a big part of the offense.  When the ball is going in leads can build quickly.  Likewise when the ball is not going in leads can evaporate quickly.

The other thing is playing with a consistent pace.  

Another thing is not turning the ball over which is a one way to lose a lead.

Overall this team has shown improvement in several areas but there is still room for more improvement.

dboss

dboss

As for the "runs" it does seem many times our opponents are still in the locker room as was the case yesterday. Why things change is just par for the course. They wake up we go into a funk. Happens more times than not, even during our last championship the only game that was a flat out blow out was the final game. Prior to that final game both teams blew leads and those coaches could do nothing to stop it either.

beat

A quote from John Havlicek explains the "Runs"

"No team can stay hot too long and no team can stay cold"

dboss

Hot---Cold. How about taking both extremes in stride and listening to what the Law Of Averages is saying.

swish

This is an extremely interesting discussion.  I like to think that the runs/lead-building at the start of a game are indications of the Celtics' potential (at least the starters' potential, as the bench hasn't been building or holding leads lately).  And the dwindling of leads in the latter stages of games is an indication of the fact that, under late pressure, this relatively young team is (1) struggling to ratchet up the defense a notch and (2) finding the basket to be shrinking in size down the stretch.

I happen to believe (or maybe it's just some serious hoping) that solutions to both of these factors will gradually emerge as the season progresses.

The defense simply fell apart down the stretch yesterday, as they failed to rotate quickly enough, with the result that (1) numerous Wiz players were left uncovered at three point range and (2) when the Celts jumped out to try to solve that problem, the middle became too open for one guy (Zeller) to cover.  In other words, the Celtics proved susceptible to a classic inside-outside yoyo offense.

Offensively, the Celts really gutted it out at the end.  While I'm happy that they held on for the win, I'd have been more excited (in a "glimmer" sense) if they had accomplished the same result by forcing the ball inside rather than depending on three point shots.  As we saw with Bradley's two three point attempts in the fourth quarter, the difference between a make and a miss from the arc can be infinitesimal.  Layups are less susceptible to "shrinkage" of the basket in the clutch; and they have the added benefit of drawing fouls.

Both the offensive and defensive warts of this team are treatable.  But addressing both could be a very gradual proposition and quite probably will require one or more personnel move (especially on the defensive side, as we've all recognized for quite a while.)

As I suggested above, although Brad's using a 10-man rotation, the core of that rotation now seems to consist of 6 players (Sully, Green, Zeller, Bradley, Rondo and Turner), with Thornton and Bass being inserted as specialists depending on game situations and matchups.  (Smart could potentially join the core, but he would scare me at the end of games any time soon because (1) on defense, he really showed his susceptibility to a fast, agile opponent yesterday and (2) his shot selection and proficiency is seriously open to question.

Right now, and obviously subject to change,  Brad is stretching six guys pretty thin, especially when the nature of the six guys virtually dictates going small when the going gets tough.  Yesterday, the Wiz tried to match the small lineup of the Celts, and that matchup was arguably what eventually turned the game in the Celts' favor.  But there will be teams that will physically batter a small Celtics lineup down the stretch to the extent that the basket will look like the eye of a needle to our Guys in Green.

Which brings me to a subject that it pains me to address—particularly since I find myself mentioning it with boring frequency.  I've always liked the energy and what we used to call "Moxie" (basically a synonym for "guts") of Kelly Olynyk.  Among the Celtics, his one-step-drive-to-the-basket move may be second only to Green's.  Kelly may be the third best passer on the team.  And his .419 three-point percentage is second on the team only to that of Marcus Thornton.  That's quite a package of enviable skills.

I know you're waiting for a "but," and here it comes.  But the value of that package is outweighed by the carnage that can take place on the defensive end when Kelly's in the game.  Yes, he tries hard; and every once in a while he make a good defensive play that prompts Heinsohn (who obviously wants Kelly and all Celtics to succeed) to go into raptures.  My lingering image of Kelly is of him doing a "dying swan" imitation that leaves his outstretched short arm just about a foot shy of blocking an opponent's shot.  Just good enough to be close.  That's Kelly's defensive profile.  He simply has no defensive identity.  At least, Brandon Bass has a defensive identity: tenaciously and strongly sticking to whomever he's assigned to guard.

It's easy to feel badly for Kelly because, at present, he lacks an identity at both ends of the floor.  They need a tall tough guy to expand the core six to a viable core seven that can go either big or small without overworking Sully, and Kelly's only a tall guy.  For most of this season, Kelly has been confused about his offensive role, and I believe the miscasting of him as a center is only slightly less egregious than Brad's casting, last season, of Avery Bradley as a floor general.  (I'm not bashing Brad because I recognize his need to find out what assets he really has.  But I hope the Kelly-as-center experiment is over.)

The problem is that, when a player—especially a young player—is going through an extended period of offensive malaise, there are usually things that can be done to help him snap out of it.  Perhaps the most often used is getting him involved in the offense early in games, even to the extent of designing plays to help him succeed.  And sometimes succeeding on offense produces renewed vigor on defense, where the "fixes" aren't so simple.

Kelly took just one shot (and missed) in 16 minutes yesterday.  So, if Brad's trying to get him more involved in the offense early in games, something isn't working.

I'm definitely not the kind of guy who believes in kicking someone when he's down.  And, as I said above, there are many things I like about Kelly's game—at least when he's at the top of his game.  But it's becoming increasingly difficult to envision a productive role (perhaps even at PF) for him on a team that will necessarily need a strong defensive identity to pursue the direction that Brad seems to have elected.

Comments?

Sam

"But it's becoming increasingly difficult to envision a productive role (perhaps even at PF) for him (Kelly) on a team that will necessarily need a strong defensive identity to pursue the direction that Brad seems to have elected."
Sam, I have the same doubts. I won't say I've come to conclusions because Kelly is young and so is the season, but when I close my eyes at night and pretend I'm a coach, I can't figure out where to play Kelly, because he's so slow on defense. (Somehow I don't recall it being this bad last year) I've tried to imagine him as back-up point guard or shooting guard or small forward and I can see him in all three roles on offense, but picturing him guarding other 1s, 2s, and 3s would lead to nightmares. I still think he can be a power forward, spelling Sully, but if his season continues to erode, yikes! Hawk

Hawk,

Kelly is so basketball-intelligent that I've held out hope that he could figure out how to compensate for his defensive challenges the way he has compensated (until lately) for his offensive challenges.  It hasn't happened, and I'm trying to figure out how much of that fact might be due to his general slump and how much may be attributable to an insoluble problem.

I really like this kid.

Sam

Sam

The problem as I see it has nothing to do with Kelly's inbility to defend.  The scouting report on him that was available for everybody to see told us that he could not play defense, lacked lateral quickness and that he plays below the rim at both ends.  It said that he can shoot from the outside and can pass the ball.

Why would anybody expect more out of him?  He's no center and he's no PF.  

In my opinion DA made a mistake to move up in the draft to take him at 13.  It was a reach. We needed a center and Dieng was available.  Dieng is a project but he is definitiely a center.

Kelly is a stretch 4.  That is what he does best.  Yes he has learned to use the little up fake to free up his drives but he is really slow and that move can easily be shut down.

Kelly is a shooter and that should be his primary function on the team.  It means that he should be playing less minutes and it also means that when he is in the game he needs to get more looks.

The best way to make that happen is to have Rondo find ways to get him the ball since the motion offense is not at a stage where you can target who gets the ball.

In games where the opponenets do not have depth at their bigs coming off the bench, Kelley can get more minutes off the bench.

Basically I think Kelly is a specialty player and as such his role is limited to his specialty.

dboss

beat wrote:And KJ

I don't think it so much Brad slow to react, players need to do that, when other teams step up the pressure we need to respond. Again as I said above NBA games are for the most part all about runs. I'd still rather get out to the good start than not however most games are not won in the first half anyway. We are finishing a bit better and looking at the standings......a low seed in the playoffs is not that far of a stretch. Just imagine how much a playoff series will help this team for the future years.



beat

Beat,

Players need to react? Yes, but it's the coach that is supposed to provide his team with direction, and when the team is not heading in said direction, it is the coach's responsibility to right the ship.

I've seen plenty of times when the C's become lazy on offense and start jacking up threes on multiple consecutive possessions, generally in the 3rd and 4th quarters. What is Brad doing? Standing on the sidelines watching as the other team is closing the gap. That's the problem. Cut the momentum, reel your guys in, and get them refocused on how they should be playing.

I understand how runs work, basketball is very much an ebb and flow game. But there are things a coach can do to influence said ebbs and flows when necessary.

I just hate to see this team play their asses off only to lose a close game because things got off track long enough for the other team to steal a win they shouldn't have gotten. Brad needs to step up more in this regards and take more charge of influencing the momentum of the game. The C's could have easily lost yesterday's game in the same fashion others were lost.


KJ

KJ

Are you privy to inside info?

He can take a time out or not but he can't play for them. Do you know what he is telling them from the sidelines?

It is up to the players to preform.

We are not there in the locker room or at the practices.

I saw a local HS game the other eve, things were falling apart, coach took all but one of his TO's (5) in the second quarter.....to no avail and then the last one relatively early in the third to no avail. Although the bleeding did stop.....so did the game.

Stevens is still learning and processing things. DA hired him for a reason. Think I'll trust their judgements for the time being, there is only so much a coach can do. Players are playing hard for him right now wins are nice but this season is a step not an elevator ride to the top.
Patience.

beat

best,

I will grant you that Stevens can be more a part of the solution during games when other teams are making their "runs" late in a game, but I still believe that this crunch time leadership best comes from the team's leading player.  If nothing else, Stevens can sub out guys who are not doing what he wants them to do.

Sam,

Olynyk is a very special player in that he needs to be in the game based on what kind of big players are on the court for the opponents and also needs some plays set for him to help his offensive confidence which is down somewhat lately but was solid earlier in the year.

He has improved quite a bit from last year, and will need to improve as much again by next year.  His lack of physicality is less evident this year, but still needs lots of work.  He got by in college, knew that he needed to make large improvements probably before even setting foot on the summer league court, and now still needs more work.

He is certainly not the finished product physically that he will be by about his 5th year.  I know a five year plan seems long, but his body was what it was when drafted and those long, skinny kids can take a while to get them to where you want and need them - ready for full time NBA play. I see him as a "late bloomer" in the NBA as he is not mentally overwhelmed even one bit and the mental part of play sends many more physically gifted players home earlier than Olynyk will get sent home.

I remember Ainge saying when they drafted this kid that he (Ainge) did not think that Olynyk would ever be a "star" in the league.  I am sure that Ainge was already considering Olynyk's body as part of that reasoning.

It would be nice if he came with an NBA body like some guys seem to have (like Smart for example), but as long as Olynyk keeps showing his constant 100% effort he will find a place on this team in time.

beat wrote:KJ

Are you privy to inside info?

He can take a time out or not but he can't play for them. Do you know what he is telling them from the sidelines?

It is up to the players to preform.

We are not there in the locker room or at the practices.

I saw a local HS game the other eve, things were falling apart, coach took all but one of his TO's (5) in the second quarter.....to no avail and then the last one relatively early in the third to no avail. Although the bleeding did stop.....so did the game.

Stevens is still learning and processing things. DA hired him for a reason. Think I'll trust their judgements for the time being, there is only so much a coach can do. Players are playing hard for him right now wins are nice but this season is a step not an elevator ride to the top.
Patience.

beat

-I'm well aware that no one among us is physically on the sidelines with Brad. But I think it's fair to point out what I perceive to be weaknesses in his coaching, just as it's fair to point out weaknesses in any given player's game.

-I wouldn't compare a HS game to an NBA game simply because we are dealing with seasoned professionals (for the most part).

-You say we don't know what Brad is telling his players to do. Well, it doesn't appear that he's telling them to not take as many threes when it's not working if they continue shooting them.

-He's just now discovering that Zeller is the best starter at the 5 right now, and he's been on the team since the offseason. For the longest time he continued playing Sully and Kelly together, which is a no-no if you're trying to have some semblance of interior defense.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Brad, but it seems as if the conclusions we've been coming to here for months are the same ones Brad (eventually) comes to much later down the road. If he's this analytically-oriented mind, then shouldn't he be a bit more keen to what's going on with his lineups/substitution patterns?


KJ

dboss wrote:A quote from John Havlicek explains the "Runs"

"No team can stay hot too long and no team can stay cold"

dboss

dboss,

And I thought "the runs" is what I had last night.  Nice to know they don't last.


bob


.

Knowing in advance that a player has limitations does not alter the fact that he has limitations and does not alter the implications of the limitations.  He played mostly PF last year and has played center mostly this year—despite the acknowledged limitations.  I think a lot of people are not simply bashing Kelly for his limitations but they're concerned about his being miscast despite the limitations.  He did very well last night against a good center for the Wiz, which I suppose will encourage Brad to continue the experiment of Kelly at center.  But he also had a number of completely forgettable games at center before last night.  Blame the coach; blame the general manager; blame the situation; blame that little North Korean wart; blame anyone or anything except Kelly.  I believe he's trying his level best.  But, if that's not consistently good enough to more-than-compensate for his limitations, it doesn't seem to be a viable long-term marriage.

Sam