Post-Game Thread, Thunder - Away

[bobheckler]

I can't help but feel like this is a game we could have and should have won, and isn't that a wonderful difference in a matter of months?  Even just 2 months ago I would have seen our failures as symptomatic and chronic, now I see them as unusual and correctable.

We lost by 4 points.  We also outscored them by 8 points in the 4th despite giving up 14ftas, they made 12, in the last 2:11.  What killed us was their 40 point 3rd quarter.

1.  We saw more sloppy, lazy passing last night than we've seen the entire previous month, total. Jae had a lazy inbounds pass that got picked up and run down court for a dunk.  Smart had a lazy cross-court pass that Westbrook stole and ran down court for a dunk.  There were only 2 Celtics who were immune to the turnover bug and that was Steady Eddie and Gigi (who only played 3 minutes).  Five Celtics had 3 TOs each.  Our total 20 TOs is FAR above our average, especially over the past month and a lot of it was our lack of respect for the ball and their energy.  20 turnovers, and we still only lost by 4 and Westbrook had to go 6-6 and DJ Augustin went 2-2 from the line, for a perfect 8 points, in the last :56 to hold onto that!  We just play the way we've all seen us play over the past month and we knock at least 5-6 TOs off that total.  We gave up 26 points on those 20 TOs.  Reduce that number by 5 and there's your road victory over a >.500 WC team, Celtic fans.  12 TOs in the 1st half, most of them easily avoidable, must have created enough pressure inside of Brad Stevens' head to create diamonds.

2.  We shot 61% from the line, 17-28.  We're averaging 75% on the season.  We just shoot our average, that's all, and there is 4 more points.  If the zebras weren't missing Kelly getting blown out of bounds by Steven Adams from behind or calling a foul on Evan Turner's excellent anticipatory steal on a baseline pass that got stripped on a reach around from behind by Morrow (a play which, 9 times out of 10, is called a foul on Morrow) or a couple of highly questionable offensive fouls on Phil or calling a technical on OKC because they had 6 players on the court (instead, they just called it a mulligan and let them off with a stern look) and there's your road victory over a >.500 WC team, Celtic fans.

3.  The ESPN highlights showed a Westbrook steal off a lazy Smart pass, the late game pass to Adams and a 3pt shot.  That was the whole game to those losers.  36 points, 10 assists!  Hosanna!  Hosanna!  They are a mile-wide and a kitchen trash bag thick.  Westbrook was 8-26 on the night,  31%, but do they show any of the numerous bricks he laid last night?  He was 1-6 from 3, so what's the shot they show on the highlights?  His sole 3pt fgm.  Along with his 10 turnovers he also had 7 TOs.  It wouldn't help their supine exaltation of all things Russell Westbrook to point out he was getting dangerously close to an ignominious quadruple-double, now would it?  Of his 36 points 19 of them came on free throws, and a solid chunk of those were donations by the desperate Celtics with time running out.  This does not diminish his competitiveness, he has that in spades, or how he is rising up and trying to carry the team in the absence of KD and Ibaka but doesn't shooting and passing efficacy matter at all to those people?  Gotta give him props for two things though.  He got accidentally hit in the mask by Smart on a drive.  He went out for a minute or two to ice it down and came back in.  He is a warrior.  He is also an iceman.  Those were 6 frozen stilettos and a big, cold-blooded 3ptr to hold us off.

4.  Marcus Smart needs to forget about the excitement about returning to Oklahoma and focus on what felt so good about his shooting stroke last night.  As opposed to the conscienceless Russell Westbrook, Mahcus Smaht had a career-high 25 points on 8-14 shooting including 7-12 from 3.  He also had 9 rebounds including one MAN-SIZED offensive one that he ripped right away from Enes Kanter.  It was pure muscle, grit, determination and fire.  Loved it!  In fact, of his 9 rebounds 4 were offensive.  He also had 5 assists and only 2 TOs.  Sadly, 2 TOs put him in the middle of the pack of Celtics last night, but 5 and 2 is still pretty good.  Two of his assists came on really, really excellent long passes off of OKC turnovers for a fast break bucket.  While all but one of his shots were from outside, the one he hit in the lane was a beauty, a teardrop from just inside the free throw line, a high degree of difficulty on that shot.  Hell, even some of the 3ptrs he rained down on them were launched from downtown Tulsa.  He was really feeling it last night.  That's why I'm saying he needs to focus on that and not on being back in Oklahoma.  This would be a very, very nice time to break out of your shooting slump and start hitting your shots, Mahcus.

5.  Bass had a quiet night.  Really?  He had 20 points on 8-11!  You just didn't see a lot of his signature 2-handed power dunks, he had a few, but he was his usual self from mid-range and hit a contested corner 3 with only :21 seconds left to make it a two possession game.  Where he and Zeller had their hands full was containing Kanter and Adams.  I got a man-crush on Brandon Bass like Sam has on Jae Crowder.  I love blue-collar lunch pail players that just work their asses off no matter what and that's Brandon Bass.  Re-sign him, Danny.

6.  We struggled with their bigs.  Some of Kanter and Adams' combined 13 offensive rebounds were just them using their superior length to go over us for the ball, some of it was our inability to keep Westbrook out of the lane (forcing Zeller, Bass and Kelly to leave Kanter and Adams loose underneath) and some of it was the zebras forgetting that you're supposed to be in front of a player if you want to take the ball away from them, not behind (see my comment about the BS call on Turner when it was Morrow who hacked him from behind.  It wasn't just their bigs that was getting away with it).  Even the fairly even-handed Mike Gorman gave a shout-out to Tommy back in Boston, saying "we're getting hosed tonight".  I've been known to bemoan the lost art of boxing out with today's players but last night a combination of all those factors made it moot anyway.

7.  While we struggled with their bigs on defense we ate them up on offense.  For a couple of big, long guys they are not particularly good defenders.  Zeller had 12 points on 6-8, Bass had his 20 on 8-11 and Kelly is getting his shooting rhythm back with 20 points on 7-13 and 3-6 from 3.  That's 52 points from our bigs (not including Jerebko's 7) vs 44 from their 4 bigs (Kanter, Adams, Collison, McGary).  Kelly, with his 2 blocks (NOT a typo!) had more blocks than OKC's entire front court and as many as their total team.  One of his blocks had a nice, soft tap back to a teammate, nice touch.  A good game by Kelly.  When he got the ball he looked to do something with it besides just pass it to someone else on the perimeter.  One possession he had Collison on him in the post and backed him down and Collison fouled him.  Let me repeat that, it is so unusual.  98-pound weakling Kelly Olynyk had 6'10", 255# power player Nick Collison on him in the post and Kelly backed him down and forced Collison to foul him.  Kelly was really feeling his oats last night.  He ran the floor for a fast break and got a Tommy Point for going to the floor.  Smart's energy was contagious with Kelly and Jae, who doesn't normally need any help with this, caught it.

8.  Now I understand why Cleveland traded Dion Waiters (aside from getting Shumpert and JR Smith in return).  Waiters is an incredibly stupid and selfish player.  No conscience or inner voice at all.  He was just out there throwing shots up in the general direction of the backboard and wishing upon a star they would find twine.  4-14 for 8 points.  Smart just completely frazzled his tiny little pea-sized basketball brain.  How bad was Waiters?  He was only 0-2 from 3, which means that he 4-12 from 2.  He missed 5, 5!, right at the rim.  JR may be a bone-head but he has some skills.  Waiters is shooting under 39% for the season and that's just slightly off his 41% career fg%.  No Danny, no.  I know you like buying cheap and selling high but if Sam Presti calls you and offers you Dion Waiters you need to get either Adams or Kanter with him (not that I'm hot on either one of them, I've cooled on Adams a bit and was never a big fan of defensively-challenged prima donna Kanter, but we could use their size).  Maybe have them throw in a draft pick too, that's how much I don't want that ME-ballin' simp.  (Note:  I reserve the right to do a 180 degree reversal if the deal goes through and Waiters ends up in green.  Winston Churchill was once asked why he was saying such nice things about murderous dictator Josef Stalin and Winny said "if Hitler invaded Hell I'd try to find something nice to say about the Devil".  Well, that's sort of what it would be like if Waiters wears green.  The nice thing about Danny is that if a player doesn't fit we won't have to gag through his games for long).

9.  Evan Turner was the only Celtic starter not in double digits scoring but he did have 5 steals, 10 assists and only 3 TOs.  His loosey-goosey high dribble wasn't working early on as OKC was slapping at everything.  He does have very good court vision, he just has to learn how to ball without the ball.  We needed his effort last night as Phil's shot wasn't dropping and he was being called for some ridiculous calls by the zebras.  Did they ref a LAL game recently and his father called them a bad word?  Not one of Phil's better efforts last night but, like I said, the zebras completely blew up whatever rhythm he tried to form.

10.  Another game of intangibles for Jerebko.  He gets his fingers on a lot of balls, keeping rebounds alive, disrupting their offensive transitions.  He bounce tapped a loose ball to a Celtic and just generally was around the ball.

11.  Crowder had 9 rebounds and some really good glue but made, probably, the worst basketball play I've seen him make since becoming a Celtic with that sleep-walking inbounds pass.  Just one game.

This was a weird game, for who we have become.  We only had 84 fgas, down from our league-leading 88.1 but we shot 52.4% which is excellent, especially for us.  We have been a bit rocky from the line recently, so that's not that weird but we didn't have any free throws in the first half.  None.  Zero.  Nil.  Bupkiss.  Forget about our 20 TOs, having more TOs than our opponents is weird.  That's also how far we've come in a pretty short time.

Bigger picture time:  We're still 10 for our last 14 games.  I'll take 10-4 any day.  I feel like this loss was an avoidable aberration.  "A mistake" as the old Celtics used to think of them.  I'll take that too.  We never gave up.  Not for a possession, not for a second.  We didn't play very smart for much of the game but we grabbed onto their legs like pitbulls and didn't let go until the final buzzer went off.  I will DEFINITELY take that!  You can't coach effort, they either have it and will give it or they won't and these grinders give it all every time they step on the floor. It's pride, and that is the one non-negotiable for me. I'm not a big stretch 4, take a ton of 3s type of guy, but I'll adjust my viewpoint if it works. I'll live with a walk up, like we had with the 3 Amigos and I'm good with the uptempo game we're playing now. It's all about results and I realize Danny and Brad and us are on a journey, we are not at a destination yet, but playing with pride when you're wearing green is non-negotiable and these guys are doing it.

Miami beat Portland.  I wonder how many Trailblazers DWade punched in the nuts while they were in the air to make that happen.  Chicago beat the falling Indiana Pacers.  Our next opponent, the San Antonio Spurs, took their frustrations out on Milwaukee.  As a result of all this, we are...................wait for it...................in 8th place!  There's still plenty of games left to advance, solidify or even fall out of the playoffs but, tell the truth, did you really think you could say "if the playoffs started today the Boston Celtics, without Rondo or Green or Sullinger, are in the playoffs" at this point in the season?

Tomorrow we have Indy at Cleveland, so there's an opportunity for us to create some separation.  Denver is at Miami, so that's tough for us to gain on.  Charlotte is at Sacto and we are, of course, at San Antonio.  This playoff slot might be ephemeral, but it still feels good now, doesn't it?  It's like having the sun beaming down on you after a period of necessary but inconvenient showers.  It's a beautiful sunny day on Celtics Planet today.  Enjoy it.

Go Celtics!


bob



.

[kdp59]

I wonder how many Trailblazers DWade punched in the nuts while they were in the air to make that happen.


I spit out my coffee on that one Bob!

[Berlin-T]

It's amazing how we played like crap in the 3rd quarter and were still in the game at the end. Pressey played in the last victory like he was IT, but last night he played like he just thought he was IT. He should not try to be that which he isn't. Being Pressey is good enough if he stays within his game.
I don't know if was something they ate last night (hopefully not smoked) but I don't think Stevens will put up with the dumb passes and turnovers for long.

Lets hope they get back in the groove at San Antonio.

Still love this team.

Berlin-T

[beat]

Had um the entire first half..... kept the genie Westbrook pretty much in the bottle.

But as mentioned TURNOVERS absolutely killed us. Especially the ones that lead to an uncontested hoop and there were too many of them.

4 point spread at the end........... shows we didn't quit. Hope this loss pisses some of them of or all of them off, Stevens too. Loosing is one thing, loosing games that you have been winning because of mistakes is quite another.

Bouncing back at SA in other years would be a chore....SA is beatable Parker is no Westbrook and Duncan gets his AARP card next month. (so he can get 10% off with Mano at White Castle.)

We are young run them Spurs to the Alamo then to the riverwalk. We got the legs use um.

beat

[dboss]

Bobh

Excellent analysis as usual.

There is rarely just one thing that goes wrong when you lose a game.

You mentioned the Celts shot 17/28 from the charity strip and as we discussed during the game on thread, the Celtics did not go to the line in the first half so all of those 28 free throw attempts came in the 2nd half.  Down the stretch we kept missing them and KO was the main misser as he shot 3/8.

Many of the 20 turnovers were self inflicted.  Pressey, KO, Bradley, Turner and Crowder with 3 each.   This proves that there is a turnover bug that can infest a team.

Yes the Celts were over-matched physically by kanter and Adams but I also thought that the difference maker was Morrow who came off the bench and dropped 20.

The score looks like a score from the early 1960's.

I expected the Celtics to win this game.  That is something I would never have thought just a few months ago.

Westbrook took 26 out of 88 shots for the thunder.  That's 30%.

dboss

[wide clyde]

Bob,

I agree that there were many good things in last night's game even though it was a loss. At this time of the season there are no moral victories for a team trying to make the playoffs, but still lots to be learned by a young team from last night.

Turnovers are one thing if the other team really earns them, but at least 8 of last night's TOs were terrible and sloppy.

This is something a young team can (and should) learn from right away, immediately. These sloppy turnovers should NOT happen tomorrow night in San Antonio. The Cs could get beat tomorrow night, but not because of the same sloppy turnovers. Concentration needs to be a 48 minute per game thing if you are fighting for a playoff spot at this time of the season.

I thought that last night was the first game in a while that the Cs really needed what Thomas brings to the team. Pressey has been playing well, but he is a bench guy for a reason and it showed quite a bit last night.

I do not mention this to place the blame on Pressey for the loss in OKC, but rather to make us aware of protecting Thomas from being mauled by guys like Wade in the future. Loscotoff (and other guys over the years) had a roll that certainly were not related to how many points he was able to score every night. Sometimes six good, hard fouls at the right time and directed at the right certain opponents are just as valuable as 6 points.

[112288]

Lot of good things by the Celtics including some hard nose defense for the majority of the game, but everyone has to get realistic..................

Wonder what the score would be if Ibaka and Durant played? How about 20+

112288

[bobheckler]

Lot of good things by the Celtics including some hard nose defense for the majority of the game, but everyone has to get realistic..................

Wonder what the score would be if Ibaka and Durant played?   How about 20+

112288

112288,

Good question.  Do Thomas and Sullinger get to play too, or just their injured players?


bob



.

[Sam]

Bob, I thought this was a particulary pithy analythis.  All joking aside (yes, there is a joke hidden in there), it is unusually insightful even at your high level of achievement.

As I mentioned on the Game-on Thread, just before Crowder made that in-bounds pass, I found myself asking why it somehow seemed ordained that it would be a turnover.  I don't know whether my apprehension involved the inbounding formation of the Celts.  But I did catch a tipoff when the defensive player seemed to start (and stop) a telltale move toward the ball before the ball was actually put in play.  I've commented many times on how Jae's so good at passing so that the recipient's body is between the ball and his opponent.  If I thought that play was symptomatic of Jae's general play, I'd be worried.  But I believe it was just a one-time brain fart suggesting that he lay off eating so many baked beans.

A case could be made that just one of the 2,880 seconds in the game spelled the difference between the final margin of the Thunder's victory and a one-point game.  I'm referring to the eyelash-late Jerebko three at halftime.  Of course, I don't really believe in such "could woulda" things because, if he had shot it in time, there's no guarantee that the rest of the game would have unfolded as it did.

How is it that these Celtics can almost routinely be expected to close any gap at the end of games regardless of how they've been playing previously?  Despite my personal antipathy for the three, i's undeniable that three-pointers often play a large role in that ability.  In the final 3:02 of last night's game, the Celtics hit 5 of 6 threes (83.3%).  That's other-worldly, even though it wasn't quite enough.

And they can also get off to excellent starts when it comes to shooting threes.  In the first half, they went 7-12 (58.3%), displaying a remarkable degree of restraint by not allowing their shooting success make them three-happy.

BUT, it turned out that their excessive three-happy tendencies were just delayed a bit.  In the third quarter,they hit 1 of 7 attempted threes (14.1%).  And, in the first 9 minutes of the final quarter, they went for 0-9 (let's see, I guess that would be an approximate zero percentage).

So, if one were to look at what I consider the four major time elements of the game (in terms of impact on winning versus losing), 

First half: 58.3% (7-12)
Third quarter: 14% (1-7)
First nine minutes of fourth quarter: 0% (0-9)
Last three minutes of fourth quarter: 83% (5-6)

If this isn't the soul of inconsistency, I don't know what is.  And, when inconsistency starts to become more a rule than an exception, I find it incredible that this team could shoot so poorly from the arc in the third quarter and yet have the temerity to keep chucking on the way to a 0-9 start of the fourth.  The fact that they recovered at the very end should offer some source of consolation; but all it does for me is to assume that adrenalin fuels better shooting but; during the third and early fourth periods—when the pivotal times in games often occur—something makes them less than woefully inconsistent and less steeped in poise.

I've been among the many who have lavished well-deserved praise on Brad lately; and I still believe that praise is warranted.  But allowing a 21-minute span of time when his team shot 1 for 16 on threes, without reigning in his team at least until the end, when three-point attempts were essential, suggests that, if I were to award Brad my mythical game ball last night, I'd have to let the air out first.

It's darned close to being an NBA maxim that mediocre-shooting teams who depend on inspired three-point shooting to win games are barking up the wrong dog.  Yes, I admit that sometimes they get away with it and we're all happy about the outcomes. However, in most cases, those success come against middle-of-the-road teams.  When facing the iron of the league, the Celtics are usually confronted with adversaries who have the multiple tools to exploit any substandard segments of the Celtics' performances.  And a substandard segment of 21 minutes (or 43.8% of the entire game) against a team like OKC (even with Ibaka and Durant)—especially when the reason for the awful play is pretty evident) is close to unpardonable.

For a team to aspire to greatness—even if only eventual greatness, some discipline in the system is required.  It shouldn't be so loosey-goosey as to meet a severe drought when shooting threes by shooting more threes.   There are other available strategies, despite the mushrooming (cloud) of three-point infatuation in the league and its fandom.  Note that the Thunder shot only 26% from three-point land, so they took only 19 of them compared to the Celtics' 34.

I apologize for talking so much about threes.  I erred in not talking more about them.  What seemed to be an euphoria-inspired beginning to the game turned into a disgraceful exhibition of TFB—terminal brain farts.

I still love this team, and one hiccup has never been a reason for me to love any Celtics team less.  But I sometimes cringe when I see Brad, after a game, say that, "We missed a lot of shots."  It makes me want to insinuate my notoriously thin body through the edge of the tv screen and yell, "Isn't that what happens when the players are given carte blanche to play lazy hero ball and developing a discipline relying on a very unpredictable resource, even when things go downhill?"

Next game.

Sam

[mrkleen09]

The Thunder are a wholy unlikeable team, particularly when the very likeable KD is on the bench.

Russell Westbrook is a great player who has at once a ball hog, a refs charity case (anything even close to a foul is given to him), and a guy who doesnt know the meaning of acting like you have been there.

You beat the Celtics at home with their best scorer back in Boston - RELAX GUY.

Adams and Kanter look like they are knee deep in a bucket of mud....good rim protection, but they were totally outmatched in terms of mobility.

This team is a quick out in the playoffs. Golden State, San Antonio or Memphis will roll right over them and I would be happy about it.

[dboss]

Lot of good things by the Celtics including some hard nose defense for the majority of the game, but everyone has to get realistic..................

Wonder what the score would be if Ibaka and Durant played?   How about 20+

112288

112288

What hard nose defense?

dboss

[112288]

dBoss

Boston had good ball pressure which lead to 17 TO's and 30 points and 10 steals.

OKC also hit some great shots with tight coverage.

112288

[112288]

Hey Bob,

So Thomas plays, does that cut in half Smarts minutes and his 25 points? He did play 36 minutes as you know.

Sully? Please if you are comparing him to Durant or Ibaka your making yourself look foolish.

112288
112288

[beat]

So if Durrant and Ibaka play... who gets less minutes and points for OKC? Morrow might not have gotten off the bench and he had 20.

Think Pressey would find a lot less minutes than too many less for Smart

But injuries are part of the game.

beat

beat

[bobheckler]

Hey Bob,

So Thomas plays, does that cut in half Smarts minutes and his 25 points?  He did play 36 minutes as you know.

Sully?  Please if you are comparing him to Durant or Ibaka your making yourself look foolish.

112288
112288

112288,

Why would 5'9" Mighty Mouse replace a 6'4" SG built like a linebacker who is also have the best game of his young career? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to replace 5'9" Phil Pressey, who wasn't having a good game and was getting DNPs when Thomas was healthy anyway? Pressey played 13 minutes. If Thomas were to get another 12 they could come out of Evan Turner's 30 minutes (Turner is the other ballhandler/floor general besides Thomas and Pressey) or by shaving a minute here and there from other players. Pressey had 2 points on 0-6 shooting. I think we could get better production out of Thomas, even in 13 minutes.

I'm not comparing Durant and Ibaka to Sully. I'm comparing Sully to Jerebko. Jerebko had 7 points and 5 rebounds in 19 minutes. Back when we played OKC in Boston on 11/12/14, when we sucked as a team, Sully had 14 points, 11 rebounds and 6 assists in 34 minutes. Durant and Ibaka are great, no doubt about it, but there's only one ball. If Durant has it Westbrook, one of the hottest players in the league right now, doesn't and if Westbrook has it then Ibaka doesn't. Maybe, as beat says, Morrow doesn't score 20, or Westbrook only does score 20.

Injuries are part of the game, that's why you have a bench, but if you want to do a "what if" exercise, then let's put all the injured players in. Sully and IT are upgrades over Jerebko and Pressey. They get their upgrades but we get ours too.


bob


.

[112288]

You are right Morrow scored 20 pts but Durant averages 25.5 points so I guess OKC wins by 9.

To pick up on that point also....if Sully plays.......KO does not score 20 points.

Is it also funny to note that since Sully's injury on Feb. 19th the Celtics are 10/6 while prior to his injury the Celtics were 20/31.

Tells me the Celtics are not more effective with another power forward playing >Bass playing.

112288

[112288]

Bob,

Stevens rotates Smart in and out of the PG position during the game. He does not solely play SG, you know that.   Besides Pressy only played 12 minutes.  Turner played 30+ and Bradly 33 + minutes.  

112288

[Sam]

Almost nothing in pro basketball is as linear as some of the assumptions being presented.  Adding or subtracting this or that guy adds or substracts this many points.  Ridiculous.  There are such things as matchups and player availabilities that can greatly affect the flexibility of strategies for both teams.  There are intangibles, and recent history of the Celtics suggests that—where this group of players is concerned—intangibles count for a lot—especially the dynamic energy of our Might Mite.  If Isaiah Thomas had been shooting and helping to space the floor last night, would the Celtics have missed (or even have taken) all but 1 of 16 threes over a 21-minute stretch.  And would Westbook have gotten more points against the speed of Isaiah covering him than against those who did guard him?  The Celtics lost by 4 and were (by reasoning) within one second of losing by 1.  They shot virtually nothing buy errant threes for 21 minutes when the situation cried for taking it to the hoop.  Let's see now.  Was any slasher type missing from the Celtics lineup?  Heck, I would have enjoyed watching Crowder cover Durant.  I'm not making any predications, just saying it could have been interesting.

Who knows what the impact of missing players have been for either side?  And that's exactly the point.  Trying to handicap what "woulda coulda" been in this league—especially on a linear mathematical basis—is, let's just say, ill-advised.

Sam

[112288]

Bob,

What I am trying to say to everyone on the board who is excited about what has happened to the team is, don't take this as a sign that we are close to being a good team, but we are getting there. I think they are playing beyond their talent which is a good sign. It means the coaching staff has finally gotten their act together, and the players are buying into the system.

That being said, a lot has also happened since the first week in February before the All Star break.

That is when either Stevens discovered a new defensive strategy on his own, or our defensive coach who came back from Golden State devised a new defensive look, but something happened. Perhaps the coaching staff finally got on the same page and became one.

All I can tell you is the team started to deploy a different defensive look. They put more pressure on the ball, defended the arc, and had better overall defense in the paint, especially late in the game. That did not happen last year, nor the first 3.5 months of this season. Perhaps Stevens just came of age and finally figured it out as how to be an NBA coach.

What I am happy about in the rebuilding process is that they are starting to round into form and get the necessary role players together for a great bench.

Keepers for next year bench are > Crowder, Turner, Thomas, Bass, Jerebko, and Zeller. They will need to add another couple of good players in trades or free agents for the bench as well.

Starting they need a dominate center, a more athletic power forward, and a great small forward and your done I would trade Sully for a more athletic power forward in a heart beat. Sully weight will always be an issue and I would do a sign and trade for another player. they also need a big time SF and the you are done. Smart and Bradley takeover the back court duties.

112288

[Sam]

112288,

Extremely well stated and on target.  There's no question that, although their defense can definitely be improved (and not only with the advent of a defensive intimidator), they have finally become a team that is guided by a defensive mentality.  When the defense suffers (as in the third quarter of last night's game), the offensive game mysteriously gets out of kilter.  When the defense is truly effective, they suddenly acquire offensive energy and rhythm.  And there's no question that their emphases on trapping, doubling, showing and recovering, and even a diamond zone on occasion  are paying dividends—even in (unbelievably) cutting down on opponents' effectiveness in taking it to the hoop.

Have you had an opportunity to isolate your focus on Crowder on defense?  He gives the outward appearance of being almost casual about it.  He plays way off his man if they're on the weak side.  And yet, when the other team goes for the score, there he is in the thick of it.

Part of the reason is that his defensive timing is impeccable.  He's a switching maniac out there.  It's not uncommon for him to cover three guys on the same possession.  As I posted recently, he routinely snakes his hand out whenever an opponent who is not his man goes by, resulting in many turnovers but remarkably avoiding fouls because he snakes it back in just as quickly.  He's the defensive equivalent of a great unnamed floor general from the past who was always two or three steps ahead on offense.  He has an uncanny way of sneaking in for defensive rebounds on some defensive stands and alternately sneaking toward the defensive end on other defensive stands.  And, remarkably, he's almost always right in anticipating because, when he's rebounding, the Celtics need him to rebound; and, when he's sneaking down court, the Celtics usually get the rebound anyway.  The guy simply has one of the great sixth senses I've witnessed on a basketball court in a long time.

One thing I'm curious about.  You mentioned that "Smart and Bradley take over the back court duties" next year.  But you didn't include them as "keepers for next year."  Was that an oversight, or was it just assumed, or do you believe they should go despite their backcourt promise?

Best to Karen,

Sam

[112288]

Sam,

No you expanded on what I had noticed.  It all started about the first week in February.  That is when I saw the change.

No Smart and Bradly start next year unless Smart cannot handle the point and then you flip flop Turner and Smart comes off the bench.

Crowder.........that was a steal!  They guy if he plays full time will be on the all defensive team.  They guy has a great body, can jump out of his sneakers and has a great offensive game both inside and out.   That is the guy you want coming off the bench to shut down your opponents top guy and add offense as well.

Sam, what would you do with Sully, you know he cannot sustain a running game for 30+ minutes for a full season and still be effective throughout the game, and he is not a bench guy?

Hope Sally is going fine, send her our best!

112288

[Sam]

112288,

On one hand, I have no idea what to do with Sully.  It's always a quandary if a player has great skills in one are but is limited in attributes that are integral parts of what maximizes the team's potential.

On the other hand, the decision is easy.  I do nothing with Sully for the same reason he was originally available to the Celtics.  His value has to be at an all-time low, given his obvious lack of height and agility, as well as the fact that he's obviously going to be regarded as damaged goods until proven otherwise.

Although I absolutely love Crowder, I'm not quite as sold on his outside offensive game as you seem to be.  In February, he shot 37.0% on threes, which might have been his personal high (I'm too lazy to check).  But, during March, he's back down to 28.2%.  As nearly as I can see, it's his only area of inconsistency.

Sam

[kdp59]

Crowder has actually been a consistent 32-33% 4 point shooter his whole career.

I am not sure why all the announcers act like his 3 pt shooting is something new.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/crowdja01.html

[Sponsored content]