Re: Celtics Post-Game Thread (Collection of past threads)

[Sam]

I forgot to mention that, in the nine games since I believe I noticed a marked change in his FT stroke, Rondo has hit 15 of 21 FT (71%). And most of the misses were in the Oklahoma game in which he went 1-4.) In his last three games, he's been 7-9 (78%). I heard a rumor that Calderon (who's been struggling a little at the line) called Rondo for shooting tips.

And now I hear that he really got whacked last night and picked himself up to drain two freebies. There may still be rough games, but the general trend seems to be in a favorable direction. And, once he convinces HIMSELF that it's the real thing and not just serendipitous, greater consistency should follow.

I'm not given to becoming overly effusive too soon...part of the same approach that leads me to avoid predictions. But, IF Rondo could play at his overall level of the past few games for the rest of his career, I believe he'd have a shot at becoming the second best Celtics PG ever. (Sorry, RR fans...The Cooz has retired the trophy!)

Sam

[mrkleen09]

Sam

Giving you the benefit of the doubt considering you did not watch the game, I still have to call you out a bit on this "winning the quarter" nonsense.

In several recent posts you have fallen into the habit of assessing who "won" a quarter, which is an extremely misleading and inaccurate way to review a box score.

You said tonight they won all 4 quarters, in an "obviously case of domination" - this is patently not the case. This was a very close game until midway through the 3rd, when the Celtics took control of both the physical game (Perk was manhandling Brad Miller...taking him right out of his game), and talent wise where Rondo sliced up the Bulls D like a slice of cheese.

The other night you commented that the Celtics lost 3 of the 4 quarters vs the Wizards and still won the game. This is also a case where the "stats" do not tell the story. You can be in control of a quarter, but have the other team throwing in off balance, low percentage shots, resulting in losing the quarter, while still having controlled it for the vast majority of the time. The Wizards made runs in every quarter to close the gap - this in no way means they were in control for the majority of the quarter, nor does it mean the Celts were outplayed in that quarter.

Just pointing out how I feel this "winning the quarter" business is a very misleading way to sort through who was playing better.

[beat]

dboss

I remember a term I used a few games ago that watching the Celtics in a game like last eve was like watching a boa constrictor devour it's prey.
Tighter and tighter then swallow them.

You used the term vice like grip and keep getting tighter also.

And really that about sums it up.

Minutes to all the "old" C's were limited also, With none over 30. Rondo had by far the most.


Also loved the end of the 1/2 or 3/4 shot by Rondo with as he lets the ball roll into the front court as there are less than 4 seconds on the clock. Grabs it makes a quick move into the circle then pulls up and buries an 18 footer. Now if he can do that more times than not we do have quite an "elite" PG on our hands. (I used the term elite with expected approval from Sam and GA. )

beat

[Sam]

MrKleen,

Based on my watching and re-watching of the Wizards game, I came to the conclusion that the cushion that
eventually facilitated the victory was achieved primarily during the second period. I used the 1-of-4 mention not as an analytical tool but simply to showcase verbally the disparity between the impetus in that one quarter and the rest of the game.

In the case of the Bulls game, the boxscore was what was available to me. One of the most immediately interesting facts was that the Celtics increased the lead in each of the four quarters—a somewhat rare occurrence that usually suggests a building of dominance. I did not imply that they were dominant from the outset and, in fact, specifically requested feedback on how gradual the increase in margin of score was.

To the best of my knowledge, I've now mentioned winning quarters twice in more than 18,000 posts here and at BDC. I'd suggest that two out of 18,000 is not exactly a "habit," especially when I was working with limited resources, in one of those two cases, in order to try to serve the board by providing a post-game thread at the earliest opportunity. And, yes, I do believe I have some reasonable facility in analyzing games visually and through boxscores.

Finally, you don't need to "call me out" on anything, whether it's "a bit" or "a lot." One of the definitions of "call out" is to challenge to a duel. I'll give YOU the benefit of the doubt and assume you really meant that you wanted to raise a question. Which I hope I've answered in kind.

Sam

[mrkleen09]

Obviously you know what I meant when I said "calling you out" - glad to know you didnt think it was for a duel

[Sam]

I had to miss the first half of this one, but I wound up feeling that I didn't miss a lot except basket-trading. Which continued throughout the second half as well. Here are some stats that will demonstrated how little separated these two teams:

• 18 lead changes and 15 ties
• Field goal percentage: Celts 53%, Griz 51%
• Number of made field goals: Celts 42, Griz 42
• Points in the paint: Celts 46, Griz 52
• Fast break points: Celts 15, Griz 15
• Turnovers: Celts 12, Griz 10
• Offensive rebounds: Celts 11, Griz 11
• Defensive rebounds: Celts 25, Griz 25
• Number of players in double figures: Celts 6, Griz 6

What seemed to turn the tide were three factors:

• The fact that 10 of the Celts' field goals were three-pointers (versus one for the Griz) outweighed the Griz' higher
free throw percentage

• The Celts made two BIG plays at the end and the Griz didn't:

First, leading by 2 with 1:29 to go, Rondo hit KG with an inside-out pass, and KG swished the long jumper

Then, up by 2 with to 0:17 to go, on a broken Celtics play, Ray picked up a loose ball, dribbled to the top of the arc, and swished a long three-pointer with the shot clock running out.

Rondo was arguably the player of the game, hitting for 18 points with 9 assists. But this was a game in which numerous players played roles ranging from useful to essential:

• Pierce scored 19 with 6 assists and, down the stretch, kept driving to the hole to keep the Griz' defense honest.

• Ray hit what was really the game winner and chipped in with 18 points and 4 assists.

• KG hit that long jumper and had 8 rebounds.

• Perk scored 13, had 6 boards, and made a very good Marc Gasol work for everything he got.

• Sheed was particularly solid in the first half, countering Marc Gasol with a game total of 15 points and 4 boards.

• Tony, in 15 minutes, had only four points but was very active on the offensive end, garnering 3 offensive rebounds.

• And Eddie contributed a big jumper in the fourth quarter.

A very nice team effort, and a good one to get away with because this Griz team can really shoot the ball (except from the arc), and Rudy Gay in particular is a well-controlled but extremely effective offensive player. Moreover, the Griz have been the best rebounding team in the league this season. The Celts' ability to tie them in the rebounding departement will hopefully be a portent of better things to come in the battle of the boards.

Sam

[dbrown4]

To add, I'm seeing more and more box scores lately where the scoring is evenly distributed. I mean very evenly distributed, which means to me no more slouching off Rondo for teams. Since everyone is scoring practically the same, it makes it difficult for teams to double anyone.

It's "easy" for teams to defend LAL or CLE because they have to double the ball hogs.

Also in their post game comments, either Rondo or Pierce said just what we've said here. There is no panic in the team down the stretch. They've been there before. I have not watched the game. I will tonight. I was "watching" it on my crackberry last night. Updated every few minutes. I did not panic the whole game! I remember saying to myself this is exactly how I expected this game to go. I knew they would pull away at the end.

It's a totally different feeling from the playoffs last year. We were all just waiting for the other shoe to drop...and it did.

Nice 3 day break coming up. Woe be unto Philadelphia. But the C's better be ready. We haven't cleared or re-established our homecourt prowess yet, at least to my satisfaction. Clearly, IND is the big game of that set after they gave ORL all they could handle @ home last night. Then it's the first (or second) real test(s) of the season. Payback's going to be a be-atch ORL and PHX!! I think the C's take both of those. Otherwise we may have some more problems to work on.

[Sam]

Dbrown,

I was messing around last night, trying to figure out today's stat of the day (still a work in progress), and I went back over the Celtics' last five games (beginning with the Thunder game). In all five games, all five starters have scored in double figures. The average number of Celts in double figures over that span is 6.2, with Sheed being the most frequent additional contributor. That's a veritable model of basketball consistency. I'd be very happy if Eddie could join the club more regularly, but SOMEONE has to be low scorer. (LOL)

Sam

[swedeinestonia]

Can a team win the MVP?

[MDCelticsFan]

The team can't win an MVP(Most Valuable Player), but it can win the MVP (Most Valuable Prize) that is the NBA Champonship for 2009-'10. This Celtic squad appears on the right track towards that goal!-MD.

[beat]

Sam

I was just going over the 11 game streak for the same reason.

The starters have all scored 10 or more points the first 4 games of the streak and the last 5.

during the 11 game streak we have averaged 5.6 players in double figures.

Our high scorer was PP with 33 against the Knicks to start the string. The Low "high" scorer was 16 by Rondo vs the Bulls 2 games ago.

during this 11 game run we also had players get 8-9 points 8 times.

Certainly we have multiple bullets and with BB looming nearby we'll have one more who could put double figures up once he gets his minutes.

beat

[dbrown4]

I would even look at the range of those scores. The tighter the better. Unlike CLE's or LAL's range which would be something north of 30 at times, taking our top six scores range must be no more than ten, maybe less over those games.

Also, I don't know if I have an argument solid for this, but something bothers me about the consistency stat either in definition or what it is supposed to show. Given that a team like the Celtics averages 100 points a game and they play, on average, say 10 players. The average points per person is double digits. (10 in this case) Does the stat really show consistency or just by the absolute number of points a team scores does this just fall out by accident? You can't get to 100 points in this case without say at least 4-5 people scoring DD's at a minimum. I think it's using "double digits" as the definer. I think I need your numerical definition of consistenty. Using the 6.2 number above, if that number fell between 2-4, that would be horrendously inconsistent, 4-6, moderately consistent, 7-10, perfection consistent. You have a stat that is bounded by 1 (Wilt scoring 100) and 10 (10 players scoring 10 each), both of which are unlikely. You get a very steep mountain normal distribution with all the stats falling between 4-7 probably. Just guessing.

I think there is a tie in between the assist to shots made and this consistency stat in that if they are moving the ball around getting everyone invovled, ramdomly everyone should be getting open (given accurate shooting of 50%+) and more people would score more points. If you have a ball hog taking all the shots, this drops the assists to baskets made number because, surprise, he's doing all the work, i.e. not assisting. A range number on the difference between the top scorer and the sixth scorer (or whereever you would cut it off) would show just how well they are passing the ball around and getting people invovled offensively.

For some reason, I thought this stat was a ratio, not an absolute number. I've lost the definition, but I thought you posted it as number of players in dd divided by total played. I like it better as an absolute. Also, what do you do if a guy scores 9 points?

Sorry for rambling on. Still can't put my finger on it. Please lead me into the light, CarolAnne!!

[beat]

dbrown

let really get confusing. Of course starters minutes are going to be in the low mid 30's on average meaning to get that extra player to score 10 or more points on bench minutes (upper teens to low 20's) is somewhat difficult but getting 2 there is much tougher.

Plus who your with on the court at the time. So many variables to consider.

now my mind is mush.

beat

[dbrown4]

Sorry, beat, that was the statistician coming out in me. It's Sam's fault!! He keeps drawing me into the briar patch on these new stats!!

Yeah, if you look at it as you described, a 6.2 is really just one more guy + off the bench scoring dd's, with an average score of ~16 points. As you suggest, you may want to even do it on a minutes played run as well. You are really dealing with a very tight range of numbers for this stat given the absolute limitations of points scored, number of players on a team, etc. So I await Sam's response with bated breath.

[Sam]

Dbrown,

I'm having a little difficulty understanding some of your points, so my answers may not be what you're looking for.

The "consistency" I'm referring to is consistency of scoring distribution (which usually implies excellent ball-sharing). I'd rather have six guys scoring 10-12 points apiece than one scoring 50 and another scoring 20. When I did my count, I was struck by the very small number of individual 20-point games that were included in the Celtics' scoring.

Yes, the ball-sharing stat I had used related to number of players in double figures divided by total number who played. Frankly, if I had continued posting those stats, I was strongly considering a way of changing that stat because the total number who played can include guys who played two or fewer relatively insignificant garbage minutes. It probably would have been better to form a ratio of (1) number of players in double figures to (2) number of players who played at least 10 minutes (and thus were probably bona fide elements of the rotation).

I'm not sure what you mean about the ball-hoggers and assist number. A player can "hog" the shooting opportunities but still be a beneficiary of assists on the great majority of those opportunities. Hoisting loads of shots is not automatically a function of iso ball.

As I say, perhaps I need more elaboration on some of your points.

Sam

[dbrown4]

No, you got it. I was thinking of Kobe or LeBron and the Me-First mentality, the drive to the hoop be damned philosophy, who normally seem to create on their own more than being assisted. Nothing to prove that notion. But you are right. They can be the beneficiary of many assists. My bad.

I guess what I was getting at when you say a veritable model of consistency, you are basing it on the 6.2 players per game over 9 points. I'm just asking you to put that number into relative perspective. How low (or high) does that number/stat have to go in your opinion for it to qualify as poor or worse (excellent or better) consistency? Or, put another way, how do you make that statement? Based on what? Relative to what? At what point(s) for you does this translate into games overwhelmingly won or lost?

Sorry. I'm splitting hairs. I think this stat in some form offers a lot. I'm trying to milk it for all it's worth!! I like it. I just don't know what form is most meaningful and revealing without some qualifiers.

In your example, you would prefer, in a 100 point game, 6-7 players averaging 10 points, thus taking ~65%-70% of the total points. You've qualified your comfort zone on the assists/baskets made around 67%, above which we win a very good percentage. Below 60%, the winning drops off precipitously. Now give us, in your opinion, a range on this stat relative to significant wins vs. loses. I hope that helps.

[beat]

dbrown

just went back and looked at some past Celtic Championship team stats

1969 team averaged 111.00 PPG
6 players in double figures all but Sam Jones (70) played in 78 or more games.

Hondo 21.6
Howell 19.7
Sam 16.3
Siggy 14.2
Nellie 11.6
Satch 11.2

WHERE IS RUSS?
He was 9.9 PPG

The 76 Champs had 5 with double figures and the team averaged 96PPG
Cowens 19
Jo Jo 18.9
Scott 17.6
Hondo 17
Silas 10.7
all played most games.

86 Champs had 5 with 2 over 20 PPG (Bird 25 Mchale 21)
team averaged 108 PPG

Taking into account averaging about 100 PPG getting 5 in double figures probably happens more times than not.

Of course the 5 that are averaging 10 plus total how many of the teams available points? Perhaps 70 of the 100 leaving 30 points for the others. So getting up to 7 in a particular game is not an easy thing to do.

I guess the bottom line is these stats are very interesting and I believe it boils down to our team perhaps having the most offensive diverse team in the league. We have 3 players who can score 20 virtually any night and a couple more that can but not as often. But the thing is they don't need to.
We really have not had out of wack scoring much where 1 player goes bonkers and gets close to 40 and then the next guy gets 15.

We can play slow down and pound it in ball, or we can run and gun a bit to.
We can shoot the three well (most of the time) and when we go inside our points in the paint numbers are near the top. The foul line % situation is getting better as Rondo is now over 50% for the season, and as Sam stated he is over 70% in the past few games.

Lots to digest with stats thats for sure.

And did I mention our defense?

beat

[Sam]

Dbrown,

As far as I know, there's no formula based on number of percentage of players in double figures that usually leads to victories or domination. The Lakers currently have 4 players averaging double figures; the Celtics have 6 (okay, I rounded Sheed's 9.6 up). The Cavs have 3.

But I do think that having a greater number or proportion of players in double figures tends to suggests more of a ball-sharing philosophy; and that's the philosophy with which I feel more comfortable in terms of how to win games.

Obviously, games and championships have been won with the triangle offense and without it. I feel more comfortable with an offense featuring the PG as catalyst. Championships have been won with a star averaging 30+ points and also without one player on the team averaging as many as 20.

I feel more comfortable with a large number of players averaging double digits because I believe it means (1) the diversified sources of scoring are more difficult for opponents to anticipate and defend, and (2) if an injury occurs to a key scorer, it's less of an adjustment for each of the remaining key scorers to add a point or two to his average in order to take up the slack than to expect each one to add five to eight points.

I guess it's a matter of preference. My preference was honed by teams that routinely had six or seven players in double figures and set a dynastic tradition that never once produced a scoring champion. That's my comfort level; and, in fact, it tends to dovetail quite nicely with the assists/field goals ball distribution stat.

Sam

[dbrown4]

That's what I wanted. Perfect. Well said. More than one way to skin a cat, or in this case, win a championship!

Carrying your point a little further, I think that's why the Celtics went as far in the playoffs last year as they did giving the gaping hole Garnett left in his absence, although I think as we saw, Garnett was providing a host of intangibles that just couldn't be matched or cobbled together. If LAL or CLE had lost Kobe or LeBron in a similar situation, they would have been handed the proverbial broom in the first round as a consolation prize.

I'm with you and the definition of what Celtic basketball is all about. You said all in your last 2 paragraphs. Championships have been won in many ways but no dynasty like the Celtics has emerged since.

[dbrown4]

Beat,

Thanks for looking that up. Very good work. That gets into what Sam looks for and prefers in a (Celtic) team as well. Sorry my post was an argument in progress. We have a very well rounded team, with or without injuries. Given Sam's assessment, we can see we have many interchangable parts without disrupting the offense or defense too much.

You gotta have your starters, though. We know how valuable KG is when he goes down from a tangible as well as and (probably more so) intangible perspective. Ray knows to go inside when the 3's aren't raining in and get 3 the old fashion way. His routine is too good for injuries to be a major problem. Rondo seems to bounce off the floor no matter how hard he hits it. Someone wrote the harder you play, the less likely you are to get injured. That's Rondo. I think Paul is enjoying his new role of taking over games (or certain short parts of games, i.e. the Red/Russell 3 minute philosophy) only when necessary, saving himself and his body for the playoffs. Perk seems to have re-invented himself and is really playing awesome post b-ball. I'm having McHale flashbacks!!

[Outside]

Rondo seems to bounce off the floor no matter how hard he hits it. Someone wrote the harder you play, the less likely you are to get injured. That's Rondo.

That can be true to an extent, but it's certainly not fail-safe. I think of Ginobli and Parker for the Spurs who play that hell-bent, driving style and are paying a price for it with injuries. I can't think of 30-year-old players who still slash and crash. Rondo is certainly resilient, but he's not made out of rubber. All things considered, you're right that he's not a player that you worry about on this team dealing with injuries.

Outside

[beat]

dbrown outside

Oh that injury bug..........last night my son and I attended a local high school game between two "small" schools (so small that basketball is the only winter sport they offer)
Marcus and I know many of the kids on both these teams from other sports ect. Well a youngster we know was trying to defend a fast break. He crashed into the padding on the wall under the basket. About 45 minutes later they finally removed him on a stretcher, now I know he was moving his feet and hands but it obviously is some sort of head neck situation that happened.

Thing is this could easily happen to any player that gets up in the air and then takes contact.....like Rondo.

One of these times Rondo might not bounce up. We all of course know that and none of us wish this upon any player but things happen, injuries do occur and Rondo should not change his style just because of what might happen but it is a double edge sword.

beat

[dbrown4]

Yeah, but lately so many of his baskets have been uncontested lay-ups and dunks. Even that Miller closeline he took should have put him out for the season. (Well, OK, I'd be in the hospital!!) I'm pretty sure if he had his choice, he would take lay-ups a 1000 times over. He's looking for those more and more and finding them as the defense gives them to him. Rondo is very intelligent. When it's not there, he's got the other four on floor hungry and ready to fire. Let's face it, he's so quick when that opportunity presents itself, that it's over before the defense even knows what happens. When the defense does catch him occasionally, it's for the And 1.

Next he needs to perfect that twisting, turning out-of-control brick he tries to throw up once he gets in the lane too deep and can't throw it back out. Now once that starts falling in, then we've got something because opposing teams have to absolutely loathe it when that circus shot starts to fall on a regular basis!!

[Sam]

Beat,

The 1962-63 Celtics (Havlicek's and my choice of the best ever) and the 1964-65 Celtics (Russell's choice of the best ever) both had seven in double figures. So did the 1961-62 team.

There has never been anything like those years of seeing opponents bewildered by such an array of scoring possibilities, beaten down by the Celtics defense, and utterly depleted by the constant fast-breaking. Those years left me feeling that (1) diversified scoring is the natural order of offensive domination in basketball, (2) a really good uptempo team can beat any other type of really good team, and (3) the Celtics teams of those three seasons (in some order) were almost certainly the first-, second- and third-greatest practitioners ever of the game of basketball. At any other suggestion, I just break into a chuckle because they WERE the perfect storm.

And they went through a major transition (the loss of a hall-of-fame backcourt and replacement with another hall-of-fame backcourt) in the process. Sometimes I think I'm just beginning to appreciate how unbelievable it all really was.

Sam

[Sam]

Man, it's tough enough to get the energy to write one of these things after a Celtics loss. When the loss is largely due to a lack of energy and execution, it's doubly difficult. And that's exactly what happened in the second half last night.

The Celts started off reasonably well, with some good inside handoffs for scores to complement a couple of Ray Allen 3-pointers. It soon became obvious that Philly was going to push the ball at every possible opportunity. (The Celtics actually had more fast break points than Philly in the game, 14-11; but it seemed that the Sixers had more fast break opportunities and ran the Celtics more.) The 76ers had some early luck with uptempo alley-oops and back-door cuts, and the Celts soon tried to match them in transition. The result was a spate of Celtics turnovers. But, with Perk cleaning up on both backboards and some inside scoring and a couple of nice blocks (on the same play) by KG, the Celts were up by 10 when the first subs (Eddie and Sheed) entered the contest. Tony and Sheldon followed shortly thereafter.

Elton Brand came in and demonstrated some savvy moves (throughout the game, for that matter), and the Sixers made some inroads, drawing within five. But the Celts bench (plus Pierce) led by 7 at the one quarter mark.

Speights started a fine scoring evening as the second quarter began. However, Tony Allen played some really excellent, irritating defense and opportunistic, slashing offense, and the Celts led by 13 when Sheed was tossed after being called for three pretty quick fouls. The last, an alleged moving pick, evoked no immediate response from Sheed. But apparently, he popped off during a tv commercial, and Thibs had to hold him back. The Celtics lead rose to 15, largely on the strength of Tony's disruptive defense, and culminating in a Tony breakaway. But 15 was as large as it would get. After a nice KG behind-the-back pass for a Perk layup and another Tony layup with 4 minutes to play in the half, the 76ers went on a 9-3 point run and had pulled within single digits by halftime, 53-44.

The Sixer inroads became an onslaught in the third quarter, as they extended their run to 29-18 to trail by only 4 with about two minutes left in the quarter. The Celtics alternately walked the ball up, showed too little ball movement in the halfcourt, and misfired in transition, while the Sixers kept running people through the lane and scoring inside or with inside-out mid-range jumpers or via free throws. The lead was still 4 at the end of three
quarters. Most of Philly's comeback had occurred against Boston's starters. The 67ers had only one more offensive rebound than the Celtics (17-16), but they seemed to capitalize on their offensive boards much more
consistently.

The momentum continued to be in Philly's favor in the 4th quarter, as the Celts had chances to pull away but blew several of them through offensive fouls. Rondo did make a circus tear drop and one (he was 3-6 in free throws for the game), and the Celtics pulled ahead by 7 with 10:06 to go. This was yet another opportunity to put Philly away. But the Sixers kept playing like winners, moving the ball effectively and hitting on jumpers and putbacks; and, within another 1:40, they had whittled the lead to one. At the six-minute mark, the 76ers got their first lead since the early going, 86-84. (A huge advantage in persistence really won this game for Philly.)

The lead then went back and forth until Brand put back a Philly layup miss with :07 to go, giving Philly their winning margin of one point. Pierce couldn't hit on a forced iso jumper from the top of the key, and that was the game. In the clutch, the 76ers went to the hoop and the Celtics didn't. Sometimes, basketball really seems so simple.

On the pivotal Philly basket, KG was covering Brand, and Pierce was covering Iggy on the outside. The pass went to Iggy, who headed toward a Brand pick. Pierce didn't try to fight through a pick that never materialized. He and KG simply switched defensive assignments so readily that it looked pre-planned...as Brand broke for the hoop. Speights, guarded by Perk, went up for a jumper that missed. Brand simply muscled Pierce out of the way and was in perfect position for the tip-in, as KG was about 25 feet from the basket and Pekr was out covering Speights. A well thought-out play to take advantage of a mismatch and neutralize both Celtics big men in any rebounding action. So, in effect, the 76ers got a free bonus opportunity on the play.

I am less and less a fan of jump-out, switching team defense. Over the long haul, it may be a good way of providing disruption while minimizing fatigue and covering up individual defensive deficiencies. But, when the Celtics must stop the other team on one critical play, the jump-outs and switches too often reveal vulnerabilities...whether the rebounding position that Brand took advantage of or open corner shots or whatever. Give me tight, man-to-man defense with reasonable matchups in every "must stop" situation. If you get picked, force the pick man to make contact so as to make it more difficult for him to sneak away to the basket and establish position ahead of you.

I'm convinced that this Celtics team, playing with a lot of energy, is nigh onto unbeatable. Playing, as they did in the second half, with average to below-average energy, they're eminently beatable—especially by a team that takes it to the hoop and shoots well from mid-range. The Celts just seemed to lose their drive and their rhythm once they got
that 15-point lead. I've always liked it when the Celtics shoot out to a lead and make the other team play catch-up. Maybe I have to alter that philosophy. Perhaps when they play a team they're supposed to beat, it would be
better if the opponent really pushes them at the outset to maintain the Celtics' intensity throughout the game.

Perk was the official Celtics player of the game, with 12 points and 16 rebounds. Rondo had his somewhat customary double-double (13 points and 10 assists). But my own player of the game was Tony. He displayed more energy than any other Celtic (in my opinion) and had 10 points, two rebounds (one offensive), two assists, and three steals, WITHOUT committing a turnover.

Finally, this is not a shot at Paul Pierce, but I am becoming a bit disillusioned by an apparent philosophy that he can pick certain games to be a leader while "defaulting" to a more low-key role other games. In the Celtics' wins this season, he is 108-211 from the field (51%). In the five Celts' losses, he is 28-72 (39%). I understand that he's only human, may be facing good defenders (like Iggy) some nights more than others, and shouldn't be overworked. But it seems to me the Celtics need him to be a dependable scoring option more consistently; and they may need to devise more ways to ensure that he's in the scoring flow of every game. We saw tonight what can happen when he tries to turn it on with a game winner after having been somewhat out of the scoring mainstream (with 9 points on 4-12 FG shooting).

Sam

[Sponsored content]