POST GAME ORLANDO

One of the things I've noticed in the Celtics' offensive play in the Orlando game that I didn't mention is that the sophistication of their offensive sets is much greater with Rondo in there instead of Nate.

With Nate, and this includes the stretch when Rondo was out, the Celts would run simpler double-sided screens for Ray. By this I mean that Ray would start on one side and someone would set a screen for him and he'd run baseline around another screen set for him on the other side and then he'd get the ball off that second screen.

With Rondo, you're seeing that too but you're also seeing a lot more double backpicking in the low post with Ray and Pierce. An example of this might be: Ray has the ball at the 3pt line. He gives the ball to Rondo on top and acts like he's running baseline around a screen being set by Pierce (so far, very similar to what was being done with Nate) except that instead of going baseline he curls around the back of Pierce's man and sets a backpick. Once the Ray pick is set, Pierce curls around his man, who is being picked by Ray, and sets a pick on Ray's man (who has followed Ray and is now behind Ray). Ray then pops back out to the 3pt line and gets the ball back in almost the same spot from Rondo, except his man is fighting through a Pierce pick. If Pierce's man doesn't switch, we've got an open Ray. If Pierce's man does switch, we have Pierce with a smaller defender.

When you see it, it looks like Pierce and Ray are almost doing twirly-twirls, or as we used to play when we were kids "frontseat, backseat". The key to this working are players who can set picks and a point guard who can watch what's happening with the other player (KG? Shaq?) and still deliver the ball as soon as Ray pops out in order to maximize the benefit of the Pierce pick or drop the ball down to Pierce in the post with the mismatch.

Nate has not shown an ability to do this. Nate believes in dribbling and this play is not about movment of the ball through dribbling, but through passing.

bob

.

There's no comparison the level of sophistication Rondo brings to the offense vs. Nate. Great analysis Bob. I expect Delonte will be a big improvement over Nate in this regard, and nate can settle into becoming a more proficient shooter once again and pesky defender.

Bob,

Two big differences between Doc's offense and an Auerbach offense are that (1) Doc's is far more complex, and (2) Red's teams got into the offense much more quickly.

It's interesting to contrast Doc's complex offensive patterns with Red's much simpler offensive patterns. Whereas the options in Doc's offense tend to be concurrent (with two possibilities open to them at the end of a play), the options in Red's offense tended to be sequential (if one didn't work, they still had time to try one or two others).

It's not really a matter of one offense being "righter" than the other, as both are/were effective. They're just different, just as the personnel are different and the defensive schemes of the day are different.

All other things being equal (which I've just said they're not), I personally prefer a simpler offense for at least five reasons.

• Taking longer to get into the offense means a longer period for the defense to get set. It sometimes pains me to see Rondo just standing at the arc for three to five seconds, presumably while the Celtics are setting up their play.

• There are more things that can go wrong with a given play in a complex offense. Just one pick that's not perfect can throw it out of whack.

• Because of the critical importance of timing, it's easier for a complex offense in general to get out of sync. Once the timing of a play is disrupted, the effect sometimes spreads to all plays. And the opponent can sometimes disrupt timing via the overall pacing of the game or an unexpected defensive change.

• It's easier for replacement players to pick up an easier offense. I guess I could call this the "Nate influence." Interchangeable parts become more of a reality with a simpler offense, and the impact of discontinuity is far less.

• A simpler offense puts pressure on the defense for a relatively larger proportion of the 24-second clock. On a given possession, they're often confronted with two or three patterns to figure out rather than one.

You call it "sophisticated," and I call it "complex." But, regardless of nomenclature, it's a major reason why short-term discontinuity can be far more of a challenge for the Celtics than most (possibly all) other clubs. And it's quite possible that the same thing could be said for the Celtics' defense.

Sam

Sam wrote:Bob,

Two big differences between Doc's offense and an Auerbach offense are that (1) Doc's is far more complex, and (2) Red's teams got into the offense much more quickly.

It's interesting to contrast Doc's complex offensive patterns with Red's much simpler offensive patterns. Whereas the options in Doc's offense tend to be concurrent (with two possibilities open to them at the end of a play), the options in Red's offense tended to be sequential (if one didn't work, they still had time to try one or two others).

It's not really a matter of one offense being "righter" than the other, as both are/were effective. They're just different, just as the personnel are different and the defensive schemes of the day are different.

All other things being equal (which I've just said they're not), I personally prefer a simpler offense for at least five reasons.

• Taking longer to get into the offense means a longer period for the defense to get set. It sometimes pains me to see Rondo just standing at the arc for three to five seconds, presumably while the Celtics are setting up their play.

• There are more things that can go wrong with a given play in a complex offense. Just one pick that's not perfect can throw it out of whack.

• Because of the critical importance of timing, it's easier for a complex offense in general to get out of sync. Once the timing of a play is disrupted, the effect sometimes spreads to all plays. And the opponent can sometimes disrupt timing via the overall pacing of the game or an unexpected defensive change.

• It's easier for replacement players to pick up an easier offense. I guess I could call this the "Nate influence." Interchangeable parts become more of a reality with a simpler offense, and the impact of discontinuity is far less.

• A simpler offense puts pressure on the defense for a relatively larger proportion of the 24-second clock. On a given possession, they're often confronted with two or three patterns to figure out rather than one.

You call it "sophisticated," and I call it "complex." But, regardless of nomenclature, it's a major reason why short-term discontinuity can be far more of a challenge for the Celtics than most (possibly all) other clubs. And it's quite possible that the same thing could be said for the Celtics' defense.

Sam

sam,

My point was about halfcourt sets, not fullcourt dashes. One can also buy time on the clock by hustling over halfcourt faster. Going into your halfcourt set with 19-20 seconds on the clock is a big difference than starting with 14. That has nothing to do with the thickness of your playbook, it's just running into position faster.

The LA Lakers and the Boston Celtics might have the two most complex offensive playbooks in the league. They are also the perennial favorites to win. A big difference between them is that Phil's Triangle is more "cookie cutter" in nature. It's easier to swap out a Gasol in the post for a Bynum or even a Kobe. Swapping out Rondo is not.

I'm all in favor of simplicity. However, for the simple to work, it must be executed to perfection. I realize, to some degree, that's counter-intuitive. You'd think that complex is harder to make work well. Well, with rookies and newbies it is. Perhaps that's why Doc craves veterans over youth. I can't say I've been disappointed with the results. On the other hand, every player and coaching staff in the league is talented and experienced enough to recognize and defend the basics. That's why they have to be executed devastatingly perfect.

Having one of the best passing point guards in the league is a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because he can put pressure on the defense by obfuscating the play. It's also a curse since he is almost irreplaceable and new players coming in (e.g. Haranody, Von Wafer) don't have the experience/knowledge to take advantage of Rondo's talents fully. That's why the pickup of West was so big for us. He already knows Doc's playbook.

We've been winning based upon talent, not chemistry. In < 3 weeks, we start getting chemistry back.

bob


.

Bob,

When I mentioned Rondo often standing at the arc for three to five seconds at a shot, I was talking about halfcourt sets. Drives me nuts. But I guess it takes time for some of those sophisticated maneuvers to get revved up.

Sam