Re: Post-game Thread: Celtics @ Lakers, 1/30/11

[mrkleen09]

Mrkleen,

I'm not really disagreeing—just wondering whether we sometimes place a bit too much emphasis on our size/toughness advantage. Technically, we have such an advantage. But it comes with a price—lack of agility—that can be a problem against the right (or shown I say wrong?) team.

KG is easily as agile as Gasol, Rondo is off the charts and miles more athletic than anyone guarding him on the Lakers, and Ray Allen is amongst the most graceful athletes ever to play the sport. If you are talking about the big men, yes - Perk, Shaq, Pierce are not graceful - but neither are Bynum or Artest.

The Celtics are a team built around solid inside play, driving to the hoop, and strong, physical defensive play. Asking them to downplay their advantage - or not emphasize what they do best, is playing right into the hands of their opponents.

Guess I am missing your point here Sam.

[Sam]

Mrkleen,

First, I'm talking about centers.

The offense of this team is built, more than anything else, around the concept of fluidity. They excel when they're pushing the ball, moving the ball in the forecourt, and moving without the ball. While Perk and Shaq can definitely aid and abet that kind of play in many circumstances, they don't represent a panacea. There are times when Glen Davis is a better offensive choice at center because he represents at least seven offensive advantages: inside game, outside jumper, offensive rebounds, mobility, good hands, ballhandling, and even free throws.

Similarly, the defense frequently benefits from having some tall timber to thwart guys like Howard. But the basis of the defense is somewhat similar to the offense. The more they move; the more they challenge picks; the more they play their "dart and recover" game; the more timely their switches; the better they stay in front of their men; the more they do those things and others, the tighter the defense usually is. A lot of the time, Perk or Shaq can play a role in that scheme against an opposing goliath—especially in the rebound department. At other times, I'd prefer the defense of Davis—not just his taking of charges but also his energy in switching and his ability (in lieu of great height) to body his man away from his comfort zones, and his ballhawking abilities.

What I said was, "...we sometimes place a bit too much emphasis on our size/toughness advantage." Perk and Shaq aren't a panacea at the center position just because they have size and toughness. Simple as that. They have useful roles, as should everyone on the team. But there are times when I feel Glen is better-suited to the center position because he offers enough advantages to outweigh his disadvantages significantly—particularly in crunch time, when every possession at each end of the court is crucial, and notably when Perk and Shaq are hampered by foul trouble.

We've all been a bit concerned lately with Rondo's lack of assists. Could it be possible that, against a team like Phoenix or the Knicks for example, Perk and Shaq tend to slow the pace beyond the point where Rondo can operate to best advantage?

Sam

[steve3344]

Celtics held the Lakers to 10 assists. But that wasn't the franchise's low total in that category. It's 3, and that was also against Boston. They mentioned it in the L.A. Daily News:

The Lakers had only 10 assists Sunday, which helps to illustrate how they went off the rails offensively. It's a glaringly low number but not close to the franchise's record for the fewest assists in a game, which is three.

That was set on Nov. 25, 1956 against the Celtics when the Lakers played in Minneapolis.

[mrkleen09]

Mrkleen,

First, I'm talking about centers.

The offense of this team is built, more than anything else, around the concept of fluidity. They excel when they're pushing the ball, moving the ball in the forecourt, and moving without the ball. While Perk and Shaq can definitely aid and abet that kind of play in many circumstances, they don't represent a panacea. There are times when Glen Davis is a better offensive choice at center because he represents at least seven offensive advantages: inside game, outside jumper, offensive rebounds, mobility, good hands, ballhandling, and even free throws.

Similarly, the defense frequently benefits from having some tall timber to thwart guys like Howard. But the basis of the defense is somewhat similar to the offense. The more they move; the more they challenge picks; the more they play their "dart and recover" game; the more timely their switches; the better they stay in front of their men; the more they do those things and others, the tighter the defense usually is. A lot of the time, Perk or Shaq can play a role in that scheme against an opposing goliath—especially in the rebound department. At other times, I'd prefer the defense of Davis—not just his taking of charges but also his energy in switching and his ability (in lieu of great height) to body his man away from his comfort zones, and his ballhawking abilities.

What I said was, "...we sometimes place a bit too much emphasis on our size/toughness advantage." Perk and Shaq aren't a panacea at the center position just because they have size and toughness. Simple as that. They have useful roles, as should everyone on the team. But there are times when I feel Glen is better-suited to the center position because he offers enough advantages to outweigh his disadvantages significantly—particularly in crunch time, when every possession at each end of the court is crucial, and notably when Perk and Shaq are hampered by foul trouble.

We've all been a bit concerned lately with Rondo's lack of assists. Could it be possible that, against a team like Phoenix or the Knicks for example, Perk and Shaq tend to slow the pace beyond the point where Rondo can operate to best advantage?

Sam

I dont have a problem adjusting the offense to suit certain situations and opponents - specifically in cases where your preferred method of execution isnt working out. But in general, I think a dominant team forces opponents to play their game, not the other way around. You play to your strengths.

Early in games, the Celtics should be pounding the ball inside over and over - getting Shaq and Perk and KG touches, softening up the defense and asserting their dominance. When they get into an up and down running game with the likes or the Knicks and the Suns - they are on the wrong path IMO.

[jeb]

SO O'l Phil seems to be saying (the way he talks it's hard to know) that when the playoffs start the Lakers will "turn it on" an just bury the rest of the poor nba beneath their wrath.

Exactly what the Celtics actually did last year. Except the Celts didnt win. They didn't have the home court and home court turned out to be pretty important. The similarities between us last year and the Lakers this year are pretty stunning.

I dont really think it will matter what the Lakers do if the Celtics bring a full squad into the playoffs.

I also think ths Spurs with home court have a good crack at the Lakers. Don know if they are quite big enough.

ANyway it was sure nice to beat those guys and better still to do it in convincing fashion on their home court.

Jeb

[dboss]

I am back.

[bobheckler]

I am back.

Yeah!!!

[Sam]

Mrkleen,

Maybe I'm not writing clearly. I''m not advocating focus on an up-and-down running game. But the Celtics offense this season has been the most fluid I've seen it in the Garnett era. (There's a vast difference between fluidity and an up-and-down running game.) Rather than the defense bailing out the offense, which has often been the case in recent years, the offense has been setting the tone for the Celtics and has been quite consistent in the process.

And the way the offense has been doing that has not been to ram the ball down the throats of opponents. It has been a balanced and diversified attack that has featured excellent ball movement, highlighted by Rondo assists. An alley-oop to KG one minute, a three by Ray the next, a Pierce elbow jumper the next, a Rondo drive the next. And, yes, an occasional hoop by Shaq (and now Perk).

VARIETY has been their "preferred method of execution" this season. A moderate number of touches for Perk and Shaq is fine, but those two are really afterthoughts in this offense. One reason is that, of the five starters, Perk ad Shaq are the least facile in the area of ballhandling—by a mile. If they're open, fine, hit them for the slam; that's part of the variety. But, to focus on the low post, and Perk and Shaq in particular, is specifically NOT the Celtics' strength.

Moreover, one of the reasons the Celtics have pulled out as many games as they have while being shorthanded has been that Glen Davis has often been a member of the "shock troops" who finish games. Look it up!

I believe that what I've just stated is a substantiation of my comment that "we" (meaning we on this board) "sometimes place a bit too much emphasis on our (meaning the team's) "size/toughness advantage." Perhaps it was my sloppy use of the words "we" and"our" to refer to two different entities. Sorry for the confusion.

If this team were to focus on toughness to win the championship, other teams would aim to neutralize that factor, as we have seen lately. And, in addition to taking the Celtics out of their game figuratively, it risks taking some Celtics out of the game literally. This team has many strengths other than height and toughness—arguably more prominent strengths. They need to keep leveraging variety and versatility (with toughness obviously being one factor) in asserting their advantages over other teams.

Sam

[mrkleen09]

That is a lot clearer Sam.

I agree that as they settle into the game and get comfortable with the flow - that variety is their ultimate goal. But I dont agree that establishing the low post game is an "afterthought"

In my eyes, the best games of the season have all started with the team establishing a low post presence (be it Shaq pounding the ball in, KG getting a few bunnies, or Pierce penetrating to loosen up the interior defense)

You dont get ally-ops until you have both posted up AND hit some outside jumpers....so I think the fluidity that you speak of is directly related to the team having established themselves on the inside first.

[Sam]

Mrkleen,

Perk and Shaq are afterthoughts in the sense that they don't get many offensive plays called for them. They're afterthoughts in the sense that they're seldom the first option on any given play.

It doesn't mean they're disrespected. It simply means that they, like everyone on the team have roles; and being early offensive options is not one of those roles. Their main roles are defense and rebounding. If there are occasional situations in which they decide to go a little more often to Shaq or Perk due to specific matchup advantages (such as on the pick-and-roll, those instances are the exceptions rather than the rule. The majority of the offensive plays are called for the other four starters.

I'd readily include Semih and Jermaine in the same category when they play. But I'm specifically not lumping KG with the centers in these respects.

Sam

[jeb]

Sam

It seems to me Rondo goes to Shaq Quite a bit, Maybe they dont run plays for Shaq but he is considerably mre than an afterthought out there on offense imho.

[worcester]

Speaking of afterthoughts, other than Jeb no one has mentioned how formidable a foe the Spurs are this year, and the likelihood that we'll be facing them in the Finals this year, IF we beat Miami - not a foregone conclusion either. There's a lot of season left to play, and IMHO the Celts are the best team in the NBA now, but assuming a Celts/Lakers Finals is assuming a lot.

[Sam]

Jeb,

"Afterthought" is just a popular term associated with priorities in an offense. It has nothing to do with whether or not a player is valuable on offense (such as by setting picks and rebounding). It pertains only to how high on the pecking order of offensive options he is. The Celtics tend not to run plays for Shaq, although he is sometimes a safety valve if the first option or two don't work on a certain play. And I'm not saying they never run plays for him. It's just the exception rather than the rule.

When you say Rondo goes to Shaq, certainly they don't ignore Shaq. Typically he starts in the high post and rolls to the hoop, and he usually takes a defensive man (sometimes two) with him, which is very valuable. It's an important role, but it's usually a support role rather than one in which he's featured. Pretty much the same with Perk too.

It was the same with Russell, so Shaq and Perk are in good company.

Sam

[jeb]

Sam

Can you ever see a point in a playoff series where Perk and Shaq are on the floor together?

[jeb]

@worcester

Very true. There are 3 teams out west and 3 teams in the east that can get to finals.

[dboss]

This has been a very infomative thread.

There is no question in mu mind that style of play reflects the most diverse offence that we have seen since the big three got together.

The fluidity of the is a almost perfect example of pure basketball.

However, we have yet to see the pound them inside game because of injuries. However once the playoffs begin the size advantage will become more apparent.

Dboss

[cowens/oldschool]

jeb

I know you didn't ask me the question,but I could see that double trouble against any team that doesn't have a deadly shooting PF that can spread the floor.I could see that lineup vs the Lakers,Magic,Bucks,Nets,Jazz.I actually would love to see that line up vs Lakers as Bynum and Gasol are not exactly speed merchants.....ofcourse the way KG just went off on LA,it would be foolish not to let KG roam and rumble for his usual minutes,but I would love to see us punish some teams with the Diesal and the Beast for certain stretches.

Actually I'm still pineing for Baby at the 3 and want to see that match up vs LA.....still hate the Lakers for some reason.

cow

[jeb]

Cow

That makes good sense. I hope we get to see them on the floor together some, God help you if you drive!

[Sam]

Jeb,

Only if practically everyone else has fouled out.

You need complementary players out there...not clones. More would not be better. Way too much clogging of the lane. Way too much compromising of ball movement. Way too little defensive movement.

Sam

[cowens/oldschool]

Sam

I beg to differ,we know Shaq can handle the plodders and the Howards and Bynums on defense and I feel Perk has enough mobility to play his stubborn physical D on most PF's.On offense is where we would be bogged down,but with a Pierce,Ray and Delonte all spreading the floor and running the offense with our normal movement,I think we could get away with it for a few stretches.

cow

[Sam]

Cow,

Although you don't say it, I assume you're referring to playing Shaq and Perk together.

Let's see. Shaq, Perk, Pierce, Ray and Delonte. So you'd omit KG and Rondo, right? Maybe in another world.

Let me know when your vision about Perk's mobility against power forwards has become an actual fact. Then we can talk about what a disaster Perk and Shaq would be together on the offensive end. Two threats to fumble the ball rather than one.

I'm not dissing either of them because each has certain important strengths that we need. But each of them also has a certain downsides. When just one of them is on the floor, the downsides are manageable enough so they constitute an acceptable tradeoff for the good things they bring to the game. If both were on the floor together, the collective downsides would be just too much.

Having both Shaq and Perk available is a major asset because one can spell the other when fatigue, injuries, or fouls become an issue. But, if you think playing them together would be a major asset, I'm afraid I'd never agree.

Sam

[worcester]

Sam, How about Shaq at center, Perk at PF, and nate at pg?

[tjmakz]

Sam,

I could pretty much assure you that the Lakers would love to see Shaq and Perk playing at the same time. It's not that Shaq and Perk wouldn't play good D but LA struggles against teams that have outside shooting big men. (Phoenix/Utah/Dallas, etc).
With the way Shaq looks right now with his lack of mobility and inability to keep his fouls down, in my opinion he is Boston's third best option at center behind Perkins and Davis.
KG and Davis on the other hand would make life much worse for Bynum and Gasol.

[Sam]

I agree, TJ. I believe the best five the Celtics can put on the floor are Davis, KG, Pierce, Ray and Rondo. Not for all circumstances, and not even for the bulk of the game, during which the constant rebounding and defending opposing bigs can take it out of a big man. But, at critical times, give me those five over any other combination.

I understand there's some kind of fascination with having Shaq and Perk (and maybe even JOL) on the team. But any advantage it gives the Celtics is because of the depth they provide at one position, not because they would make good complementary players.

In last night's first quarter, there were six occasions in the first quarter when the Celtics attempted to get the ball into Shaq, resulting in turnovers. He was not credited with all six, but he was involved. Yet the Celtics were able to mount a nice lead during that quarter, and I thought Shaq was pretty good on the defensive end. In other words, they were able to overcome any liabilities he presented. Put Perk on the floor at the same time as Shaq, multiply the possibile liabilities by two, and no amount of defensive attributes would more than offset the potential disruption of the Celtics' offense.

More is not always better. Balance has always been the best option for the Celtics.

Sam

[LACELTFAN]

How bout putting Shaq, Perk, JON, SE and BB all on the floor at once...
Hit em with 5 centers, that'll baffle em! We may not be able to handle the ball well or score much but damn it we had better get any rebounds, O or D.

[Sponsored content]