The Three Strikes....and They're Out or The Lingering Specter of Rajon Rondo

gyso wrote:Has anyone seen where Rondo was benched last night for arguing with Rick Carlisle?  Now he has been benched twice.  Once more makes three strikes . . .

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/rajon-rondo-benched-after-shouting-match-with-mavs-coach-rick-carlisle-072026341.html

I did see that. There's a different video in this article, including postgame comments from Carlisle:

[url=espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/12378645/rajon-rondo-coach-rick-carlisle-shouting-match-dallas-mavericks-win]espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/12378645/rajon-rondo-coach-rick-carlisle-shouting-match-dallas-mavericks-win[/url]

We'll see where it goes from here, but it appears Carlisle has no tolerance for Rondo ad-libbing after Carlisle has called for something specific.

It's one thing to keep opponents guessing.  It's another thing to weaken your offensive contributions to do so.  Sully can represent a dual threat without having to trudge all the way to the three point line to do it.  He has a pretty good mid-range jumper, which doesn't take him so far from the offensive board, where he can be a beast.

I'm sure Sully did many things while he was younger.  Some are useful to the current iteration of the Celtics.  Others?  Not so much.  I'm not really blaming Sully for straying so far in order to hoist threes.  I believe he's been given the impression that doing so is helpful to the Celtics.

Once in a while, Sully does hit a key three, or even two in succession; and, in his and Brad's mind, those infrequent occurrences probably strengthen the case for Sully's pursuit of the three point game.  But I don't see his overall three point accuracy improving.  And, before his injury, he was arguably the only low threat on the team, which was an invaluable asset as we're seeing now that he's out.

If Brad had counseled him that he should focus on where he was most useful—down low—rather than also trying to be a perimeter player, I bet that's what Sully would have done, despite what he had fun doing as a kid.  Players do many things in their younger days that aren't automatically valuable as pros—especially if they do them in a flawed manner.

Sam

mrkleen09 wrote:KJ

Could not disagree with you more.

Being 21 and 33, an exciting young team that plays hard and is a couple of games out of the playoffs isnt the desired result?  This current team is far exceeding the expectations of most people I know, sorry you are not one of them.

Having a young team has nothing to do with it.  If you dont have players who are adept at driving and running (at least at this point in their young careers) then it makes no difference if they are young or old.  Marcus Smart is not a good driver, in fact he isnt much of an up tempo guy - neither is James Young, Zeller, KO, and the list goes on.  

You want the coach to set in place a proper system for players who are not here on the roster right now?  Are you kidding?  You play with what you have now, building comradare, fight, spirit and as your roster changes - your tactics change.

This isnt the showtime Lakers, who drafted players to fit a successful, proven formula - this is a hodge podge of guys who may or not be here in a few months.

Whether you like the style or not, the Celtics are Brad Stevens ARE establishing a winning culture.  A winning culture is not defined by wins, particularly when you are playing with more talented teams nearly every night.  It is defined by playing hard, hustling, diving for loose balls, and having your teammates back....all things this team does almost every night.

I think in you are being blinded by your desire to see the team run your preferred offense - as you are clearly not watching the same team I am.

Perhaps we are watching different things.

21-33 is exceeding expectations? How so? If anything, the team is right around where I was expecting: somewhere better than last year but not much better. There's been too many moving parts for any cohesiveness to establish. As BobH and many others have stated, the rebuild is still quite fluid. I'm sure over the next two years the roster will have been revamped from what it is currently.

Three-point shooting, in my opinion, is pure laziness when done in excess, as this year's team has done. There is no way around that. Please explain to me how advantageous it is for a poor 3-point shooting team such as this one to take as many threes as it does. When you miss threes it gives the other team a much easier opportunity to score in transition. Exactly what positive benefit does this have on a young team's growth? If anything, it's a cultivation of bad habits: launching ill-advised threes and camping out beyond the arc.



KJ

Yes.  Exceeding expectations.

If you told ANY Celtics fan in October that after trading the leading scorer, the starting PG and leading assist man, being without KO and Sully for significant periods of time, with a rookie starting at PG - a couple of journeymen and other mismatch selection of players  - that on February 25 you would have 22 wins (3 wins away from exceeding last seasons total) and just 1 game out of the 8th playoff spot, they would have told you, that you were crazy.

ESPN claimed the Celtics would win 25 games


CBS Sports said - 25 / 21 / 25 respectively  


Las Vegas Odds Makers had them at 26.5


So yes, by most objective measures - they are exceeding expectations.

As for the 3 point shot and your opinion of it, that is purely objective.  The NBA as a whole is going to far exceed its record for total 3 point field goals attempted and made in a season, so if you dont like the 3 point shot - it isnt just Brad Stevens that must be irking you - it is the entire NBA.  Is every team in the NBA lazy?  

The Denver Nuggets shoot the same amount of 3 point FGs as the Celtics and actually make less - would you consider them a "lazy team"?
The Oklahoma Thunder, who are a young and athletic up and down team - guess how many 3PT they attempt every night?  1 less than the Celtics and at a lower FG%. Surely no one in the NBA describes the Thunder as "Lazy"

When you have a roster with a legit center, when your PG understands how good he can be taking the ball to the hoop, when you have defined roles for each player on your roster - maybe you ratchet down the number of 3 pointers attempted a bit.  But since none of those things are in place now, I say Brad is doing a great job playing the hand he was dealt.

Going to have to agree to disagree here.

Sorry but for starters, I refuse to base my expectations on those of so-called "experts."

As for the rest of what the 31 NBA teams are doing with respect to 3-point shooting, that's not of much concern to me. And by the way, the Denver Nuggets are 20-37. So what's your point?

I have other reservations about Brad's coaching which extends beyond 3-point shooting, but that's a different matter altogether.


KJ

It makes no difference if you agree or not with any group of writers or experts.  

The general consensus was that the Celtics would see around the same win total as last year WITH Jeff Green and Rajon Rondo - if you were to subtract them from the equation....then add in a few months without Sully and KO - that total would have to decrease even further.  So the fact that the Celtics are on pace to exceed (by a significant amount) their win total from last year - yes, they are exceeding expectations.

The Celtics are on the verge of qualifying for the playoffs.  There is no way anyone (yourself included) predicted they would be a playoff team - especially without Rajon and Jeff Green.  So that again means, yes  they are exceeding expectations.

Your claim shooting 3 pointers is a "Lazy" strategy shows just how out of touch you are with the prevailing offensive strategies in the NBA.  If you came out and said you dont like the 3 point shot - that would be fine, but trying to support your case by calling it lazy is just ridiculous - particularly when many of the 3 point shots being taken in the NBA circa 2015 are IN TRANSITION.....so on a fast break, which is the opposite of being lazy.  

Is Golden State a lazy team?  Is Atlanta a lazy team? How about the Spurs?

The Celtics are 11th in the NBA in scoring.  Of the 10 teams who score more per game than they do, 9 of them shoot more 3 point field goals than the Celtics do.  

3 pointers are a big part of the modern game of basketball.  Sorry you are not on board, but every successful team in the NBA is.

There's a difference between a lazy team and a team that develops a lazy habit.  A mediocre three-point shooting team may hustle its butt off; but, if they default to three point shots when things get hairy, I consider that to be a lazy default.

That has nothing to do with whether the three-pointer is a big part of the modern game of basketball.  Of course it is.  That doesn't mean one has to like it.

Mrkleen, I think you might have meant that opinions of the three point shot are subjective, not objective as you stated.  Actually, it's a combination of subjectivity (for example, I don't like the three-pointer because I think it dampens the basic beauty and pace of the game in favor of a runaway entertainment orientation) and objectivity (for example, the Celtics rank 24th in three-point accuracy).  There's nothing wrong with exercising either subjectivity or objectivity.

Sam

Sam

Maybe I am wrong - but I was under the impression that Objective was related to the "observation of measurable facts" - that facts in this case are that experts felt the team would be the same or worse than they were last season. So if I can show multiple examples where experts said the Celtics would win less games than they have already won, objectively speaking the Celtics are exceeding expectations. In the case, I used the word I wanted to use.

In the next line - you are correct. When talking about opinions, I should have used subjective.

As for the rest about 3 point shooting - this is down to personal preference and style. Someone would need to call out nearly every coach in the NBA to criticize his offensive play calling - since nearly every team in the league uses the 3 pointer as a part of their overall strategy.

The Celtics average 88 shots per game (the most in the NBA) and of those 24 are 3 pointers. I dont see that as representing any kind of a default.

Mrkleen,

I'm aware of the stats.  By "default" I'm not alluding to the sheer number of three-pointers the Celtics take or the percentage of their shots that are three-point attempts.

I'm referring solely and specifically to their penchant for defaulting (or resorting) to three-pointers on many occasiona when they fall behind.  You know, all those times when Tommy and we on the Game-on Thread are yelling, "Take it to the hoop."  Call it poor discipline or poor execution or whatever, but I see it as a lazy alternative to working hard to mount a comeback.

Ironically, at just the time when they might have their best excuse for not taking it to the hoop (the absence of Sully), the arrivals of Thomas and Crowder have injected more life in their penetration game to the extent that the Celtics don't seem to be defaulting so exclusively to outside shots.  My perception is that they're mixing up their offense more than previously, which makes their offense less predictable and, therefore, more difficult to defend against.

Sam