POST GAME NEW YORK

BOSTON 112 NEW YORK 102

GAME STATS

CELTICS

FGM-A 48-85 56.5%
3PM-A 8-17 47.1%
FTM-A 8-13 61.5%
OREB 5
DREB 35
REB 40
AST 19
STL 9
BLK 1
TO 14
PF 21
PTS 112


NEW YORK

FGM-A 39-85 45.9%
3PM-A 7-23 30.4 %
FTM-A 17-21 81%
OREB 12
DREB 25
REB 37
AST 22
STL 8
BLK 5
TO 16
PF 14
PTS 102

112288

The real season begins Sunday.

Shaq and Delonte are playing I hear. Could we get it going at just the right time? I am skeptical of turning it on come playoff time, but heck I was skeptical last year.

The only definite in my book is I'll be rooting like hades for the Cs!

bobbyc ditto

Heard a pretty startling stat tonight. It was pointed out that since the Clipper game on March 9th the Celtics have averaged the fewest points per game in the NBA (90.85). Dead last in the league. That's for the last 20 games of the season.

Who said our problems are mainly on defense? I'd say our offense has been an equally large problem.

I hope we can correct this starting Sunday.

Here's another eye-opening stat: In 2010 Glen Davis had 101 offensive rebounds in 933 minutes of play. In 2011 he had THE SAME 101 offensive rebounds but in 2,298 minutes of play! Well over twice as many minutes played with the same amount of offensive rebounds. Wow.

Defense has always led to the Celtics producing offense. I'll stick with defense as one of our main problems. The other is choice of shots on offense. We tend to take too many forced jumpers or jumpers out of a shooters range and not dive to the paint.

112288

112288 wrote:Defense has always led to the Celtics producing offense. I'll stick with defense as one of our main problems. The other is choice of shots on offense. We tend to take too many forced jumpers or jumpers out of a shooters range and not dive to the paint.

112288

And the reason for this was quite evident last eveing if the starters paid attention. Push the ball up the court and look for openings. Even off makes get the ball out of the net and go. I saw more long passes into the front court last evening than I have seen all year. Move the ball and yourself and all of a sudden we get 15 MORE shots than our average and score well over 100 points. And look at our shooting % last evening. If we can shoot that and play even close the D we are capable of, we will be quite tough. And yes it wae the Knicks I know but the idea is the same.

Rondo can do this as well as anyone but if the others are not committed to get their butts up the court too it is for naught. Would love to see a lengthend rotation in the playoffs and see waves of green spelling the starters earlier and more often.

I realize that the playoff way of life has been like 2 heavyweight fighters instead of flyweights. Would love to see it change.

beat

Beat,

You are right. On Turnovers got to push the ball to finish the job. Causing turnovers without pushing the ball we get nowhere.

112288

beat wrote:

112288 wrote:Defense has always led to the Celtics producing offense. I'll stick with defense as one of our main problems. The other is choice of shots on offense. We tend to take too many forced jumpers or jumpers out of a shooters range and not dive to the paint.

112288

And the reason for this was quite evident last eveing if the starters paid attention. Push the ball up the court and look for openings. Even off makes get the ball out of the net and go. I saw more long passes into the front court last evening than I have seen all year. Move the ball and yourself and all of a sudden we get 15 MORE shots than our average and score well over 100 points. And look at our shooting % last evening. If we can shoot that and play even close the D we are capable of, we will be quite tough. And yes it wae the Knicks I know but the idea is the same.

Rondo can do this as well as anyone but if the others are not committed to get their butts up the court too it is for naught. Would love to see a lengthend rotation in the playoffs and see waves of green spelling the starters earlier and more often.

I realize that the playoff way of life has been like 2 heavyweight fighters instead of flyweights. Would love to see it change.

beat

AGREED on another thread I mentioned Doc didn't use Wafer enough, how he could run with Rondo, would have loved to see more WAVES of Green all season running and wearing teams out, don't know if we'll see it during playoffs, but I'm thinking next year with continued improvement Green, Wafer and AB will force themselves into rotation and we'll see more uptempo.

I didn't watch the game, I'm taking a few off like the starters.

Avery Bradley scored 20 points on 10-16? Wow! The kid really grabbed the bull by the horns. Good for him, he's been a good, quiet, soldier all year.

Sasha had 19 on 7-10. Looks like he was on like a laser-bomb from the left.

It appears, from the stat sheet that Wafer outplayed Arroyo at point. Was it like that?

I mean, we had 6 players in double figures and one, Murphy, with 9. That's pretty impressive offensive production.

It looks like everybody who will play on Sunday for the Knicks played last night except for Melo. Granted, Amar'e only played 20 minutes and still did pretty damn well, but for our scrubs to beat our next playoff opponent just shy of their full complement (and we're playing without Shaq and West on top of no starters), that sounds pretty damn good!

Can someone give me some insight into what happened?

bob

.

Bob

To sum it up we RAN and moved the ball, took it to the hoop and did NOT stand there and pound it. Everyone ran (with the exception of perhaps Davis when he posted up and made a few inside moves, some worked but his damn fade a way was always comming up front rim.

It wasn't at all like fast break stuff either although there was a little of that. Once we optained possession the ball got into the hands of Wafer or Arroyo and then either they RAN up the court on the dribble or if open they hit a player in the frontcourt on the wing and filled lanes putting the knicks is defensive disaray. SO if the Knicks whom were back collapsed to protect the paint we had trailers to hit the outside and if they ran out to cover them we simply took it to the hoop or moved it around the horn.

Bradley went by everyone several layups and dunks, Plus a few nice jumpers from outside.

Thing is we had open shots and shot well and relatively early in the shot clock too. I don;t remember a shot being forced out of desperation due to a shot clock issue. These 8 played like they have played together all year not just a month plus.

We hit the boards well also and did not give the knicks too many second looks cept one time when someone (Williams maybe) got like 3 offensive rebounds off his own misses till Murph finally fouled him.

And speakingof Murph. He hit a three! Wonder if he was as shocked it went in as I was.

Arroyo played well as a point and Wafer let loose with his best RA imitation from the outside with the plus of taking it to the hole hard.

Sasha also played RA with his treys and again he spotted up and was hit with a pass and let fly, No hesitation.

Of course it took 82 games to get here. And now it's the playoffs and some of these guys won't even dress let alone see the floor. HOWEVER if needed I would think Doc would be a little more at ease putting them in for a bit after the way they played the past 2 games. Even though there are at least 1 day off between games we still need to be mindfull of minutes and give our starters as much rest as possible.


I really don't think we have had a game this year where are offensive looked this good with the appearance of not running plays yet we got open looks consistantly. Then to consider our top 4 players along with the ONeal twins or West did not set foot on the court.

The new/next journey begins on Sunday!

IT'S ALL ABOUT 18

beat

beat: "These 8 played like they have played together all year not just a month plus."

didn't see the game, was at a Buddy Guy concert (that was awesome).
but THAT is REALLY great news. seemed to me our bench had been being outplayed too often in recent games. now, with minutes, they are jelling, playining together and playing hustle ball.

agrere with all posters that the starting five could use an injection of hustle ball. the green team is showing how to win these games.

Michael

beat wrote:Bob

To sum it up we RAN and moved the ball, took it to the hoop and did NOT stand there and pound it. Everyone ran (with the exception of perhaps Davis when he posted up and made a few inside moves, some worked but his damn fade a way was always comming up front rim.

It wasn't at all like fast break stuff either although there was a little of that. Once we optained possession the ball got into the hands of Wafer or Arroyo and then either they RAN up the court on the dribble or if open they hit a player in the frontcourt on the wing and filled lanes putting the knicks is defensive disaray. SO if the Knicks whom were back collapsed to protect the paint we had trailers to hit the outside and if they ran out to cover them we simply took it to the hoop or moved it around the horn.

Bradley went by everyone several layups and dunks, Plus a few nice jumpers from outside.

Thing is we had open shots and shot well and relatively early in the shot clock too. I don;t remember a shot being forced out of desperation due to a shot clock issue. These 8 played like they have played together all year not just a month plus.

We hit the boards well also and did not give the knicks too many second looks cept one time when someone (Williams maybe) got like 3 offensive rebounds off his own misses till Murph finally fouled him.

And speakingof Murph. He hit a three! Wonder if he was as shocked it went in as I was.

Arroyo played well as a point and Wafer let loose with his best RA imitation from the outside with the plus of taking it to the hole hard.

Sasha also played RA with his treys and again he spotted up and was hit with a pass and let fly, No hesitation.

Of course it took 82 games to get here. And now it's the playoffs and some of these guys won't even dress let alone see the floor. HOWEVER if needed I would think Doc would be a little more at ease putting them in for a bit after the way they played the past 2 games. Even though there are at least 1 day off between games we still need to be mindfull of minutes and give our starters as much rest as possible.


I really don't think we have had a game this year where are offensive looked this good with the appearance of not running plays yet we got open looks consistantly. Then to consider our top 4 players along with the ONeal twins or West did not set foot on the court.

The new/next journey begins on Sunday!

IT'S ALL ABOUT 18

beat

beat,

Thanks for the update. I actually posted a response (or, at least, thought I posted one) but when I came back to read pygme's post I didn't see mine, so I'm trying to recreate it here.

We both had 85 fga. That's a healthy number, SIGNIFICANTLY healthier than the ones we've been seeing for a few weeks now, and quite impressive when you match it up against Mike D'Antoni's run-and-gun offense.

I looked at Bradley's shot chart. He was very active from all over the floor. Took it inside quite a bit, as well as from range. I still don't think Doc will keep him on the playoff roster though. For better or worse, I expect he's going to go with Arroyo's experience. From the sounds of it, though, Bradley made his case for why Danny dug in his heels and didn't want to include Bradley in any of the various trade scenarios that were being batted around pre-deadline. A future backcourt of Rondo and Bradley would be short, but extremely athletic. I'm glad to hear that Arroyo played point well, I was starting to get down on him some.

I think Wafer has found himself a home too. I think Doc likes him a lot and will want him around next year. It's a toss-up between Sasha and Wafer for that playoff spot, although I think Sasha's got the edge because he is big enough to play 3, while that's a stretch for Wafer, and Sasha showed last night that he can shoot from range like Wafer too. Still, when I think about it, who would do better jobs playing the following players: DWade, LBJ, Miller, Jefferson, Korver and Deng? I could see Wafer doing a good job on Wade, Korver and maybe even LBJ (force him to shoot from outside and not let him put the ball on the floor) but Sasha could do Korver, Miller, Jefferson and Deng. I'm not sure Wafer could handle Deng. We also have to consider the "feisty factor" too. Who's more likely to woof back at Barnes, Gibson and Brewer? I think playoff rosters have to be set today, so we won't have to wait long to find out.

I hope the starters watched from the bench and were both inspired and a bit chagrined as they watched the scrubs play the way the starters should have been playing for weeks now.

bob

.

Doc playing all subs was a genius move.
I bet those two games gave JON, Bradley and Murphy tremendous confidence. Plus, nobody knows if one of the big 4 would have gone down to an injury...
Bradley has had a terrible year. I would think last nights game showed to himself what he is capable of and just as important it showed the Celtics that he is worth keeping and not trading for a draft pick.
JON was a force inside in the previous game against very strong and athletic Wizards big men.

These subs have probably always felt that if they don't perform, then the starters will take over.
Having played through a couple of games knowing that a future hall of famer wasn't going to come in to save the day will probably help these guys perform at a more determined level in the playoffs.

tjmakz wrote:Doc playing all subs was a genius move.
I bet those two games gave JON, Bradley and Murphy tremendous confidence. Plus, nobody knows if one of the big 4 would have gone down to an injury...
Bradley has had a terrible year. I would think last nights game showed to himself what he is capable of and just as important it showed the Celtics that he is worth keeping and not trading for a draft pick.
JON was a force inside in the previous game against very strong and athletic Wizards big men.

These subs have probably always felt that if they don't perform, then the starters will take over.
Having played through a couple of games knowing that a future hall of famer wasn't going to come in to save the day will probably help these guys perform at a more determined level in the playoffs.

TJ,

Doc has a well-deserved rep as a "player's coach". I'll bet the bench would swear to that on a stack of bibles today and, yes, it may pay off down the road this year. You also dead right about the possibility of injuries too. Imagine the screaming we'd be hearing if one of our starters took a knee in the thigh last night from a Knick bench player.

bob

.

Bob

Last season in the finals we had 12 players listed and dressed for game 6. After perk went down, for game 7 he was no longer listed and instead Scal was one of the 12.

Found this

NBA Expands Playoff Rosters
NEW YORK, April 11, 2006 – The National Basketball Association announced today that the league’s Board of Governors has approved the expansion of playoff rosters for the 2006 NBA Playoffs.
In the past, teams carried 12-man rosters during the playoffs. This year, teams will be allowed to carry 13-man playoff rosters although only twelve players will be eligible to play in each playoff game. Teams will be required to deactivate one player prior to each game.

So it would appear we can make 13 players "eligible" but have to deactivate 1 prior to each game but it does not need to be the same one.

My guess is that Bradley and Murph will wear suits.

beat

steve3344 wrote:

Here's another eye-opening stat: In 2010 Glen Davis had 101 offensive rebounds in 933 minutes of play. In 2011 he had THE SAME 101 offensive rebounds but in 2,298 minutes of play! Well over twice as many minutes played with the same amount of offensive rebounds. Wow.

This is why I'm not a fan at all of those silly per/48 and per/36 mins stats that ppl on various sites like to use as a comparison. More minutes does not mean increased stats.. at least not at the same rate.

I don't know that I'd call playing the subs a genius move. It seemed obvious to me, considering that the all the East playoff spots were set going into yesterday's games. A lot of teams gave their starters the night off.

As for who they'll have active for the playoffs, they have the luxury of changing that based on matchups, injuries, and strategies. It will be interesting to see how much they change the active roster and whether Doc plays anyone that far down the bench.

I think the Knicks are a good matchup for the Celtics in the first round. Boston has the advantage in several areas, and it could get a little chippy, which will help the Celtics get their playoff focus honed.

Outside

Does one of the stat sites track how many of player's shots get blocked? I know in the past, Davis got a lot of his shots blocked inside but often recovered the blocked shot, which would count as an offensive rebound.

It seems like this year he's taking far more shots outside, which would lead to fewer offensive rebounds in any event -- besides fewer outside shots getting blocked (leading to fewer of those "cheap" offensive rebounds), he's also farther from the basket and therefore less likely to rebound any misses, his or anyone else's.

celtic fan wrote:

steve3344 wrote:

Here's another eye-opening stat: In 2010 Glen Davis had 101 offensive rebounds in 933 minutes of play. In 2011 he had THE SAME 101 offensive rebounds but in 2,298 minutes of play! Well over twice as many minutes played with the same amount of offensive rebounds. Wow.

This is why I'm not a fan at all of those silly per/48 and per/36 mins stats that ppl on various sites like to use as a comparison. More minutes does not mean increased stats.. at least not at the same rate.

celtic fan,

I feel that the /48 or /36 mpg stats are the only ones that allow comparisons between players. Of course a player that plays twice as many minutes will produce better looking stats. The question is "how much better, and are those extra minutes justified?".

Some players play better when they get more minutes. It allows them to get into the flow of the game, feel comfortable, even make a few mistakes without getting pulled. Perhaps that's what we saw last night with Sasha and Bradley, Wafer and Arroyo. Other players can't keep up the same pace for 36 minutes of play that they can in 18 minutes of play. I think we saw that a few times with Perk, when his minutes went up significantly.

However, wouldn't you be impressed if Kobe's ppg average only dropped 10% if he was playing 25% fewer minutes? And how about Davis? If the stats showed that he doubled the number of rebounds from last year (instead of half) while only playing 20% more minutes, wouldn't you think he has now become some kind of "rebounding monster"? Davis is taking a ton of more charges this year than in any previous year. If you looked at that on a charge per minute played basis, wouldn't you see what you already know, except in concrete terms?

bob

.

of course someone who plays more mintues puts up better stats the majority of the time. But to me there's a reason why that player gets more mins and the other player does not.
And as Davi's raw numbers show, more mins for a player does not always guarantee a straight proportionate increase in stats.

The per/36 rate assumes a flat line increase or decrease in a players stats and that's not always the case. It generalizes too much for me.

If Kobe's time decreased by 25% and his scoring only dropped 10%, we'd note this by his increased FG% or a similar rate or FG attempts to explain why.

And yes if Davis' rebounding numbers increased by more than what his mins increased by it would be a sign of the player improving and making the most of his opportunity. I don't see where a per/36 stat would be helpful in predicting such a thing though.

Bob and Celtic Fan,

I think you both make good points about the per 36 minute stats.

On Celtic Fan's side, I agree it's misusing the stat to take a player who plays significantly less than 36 minutes and assume he'd have the same productivity if his minutes were increased, for two reasons:

-- Players who play less than 36 minutes are typically subs who play a lot against other teams' subs, and their productivity would likely go down if they played against starters, which is what they'd do more of if they played 36 minutes.

-- Some players are more effective in limited minutes, and Davis is a good example. He's a bulky guy who is effective because he plays at a high energy level, but he can't sustain that if he plays starters' minutes. I think of it as being the difference between starting and relief pitchers -- you can't take a relief pitcher's stats over 1-3 innings and say he could do just as well if he pitched 6 innings or more. Some guys are starters who pace themselves over longer periods, but some guys are more effective as impact players in short stints.

But having said that, I agree with Bob that it's useful to look at per-36-minute stats when comparing players. I know I look at them. It's just important to consider context.

Outside

Outside wrote:Bob and Celtic Fan,

I think you both make good points about the per 36 minute stats.

On Celtic Fan's side, I agree it's misusing the stat to take a player who plays significantly less than 36 minutes and assume he'd have the same productivity if his minutes were increased, for two reasons:

-- Players who play less than 36 minutes are typically subs who play a lot against other teams' subs, and their productivity would likely go down if they played against starters, which is what they'd do more of if they played 36 minutes.

-- Some players are more effective in limited minutes, and Davis is a good example. He's a bulky guy who is effective because he plays at a high energy level, but he can't sustain that if he plays starters' minutes. I think of it as being the difference between starting and relief pitchers -- you can't take a relief pitcher's stats over 1-3 innings and say he could do just as well if he pitched 6 innings or more. Some guys are starters who pace themselves over longer periods, but some guys are more effective as impact players in short stints.

But having said that, I agree with Bob that it's useful to look at per-36-minute stats when comparing players. I know I look at them. It's just important to consider context.

Outside

outside,

Exactly. You can't take a player who plays 5 minutes a game and only in blow outs and consider his /36mpg stats. On the other hand, if a player averages 28-35mpg, then he is a starter or significant bench member and normalizing his stats to 36mpg is absolutely reasonable since his average isn't too far off that AND he's probably going to be playing against some of the other teams' starters at some point too. It certainly makes sense to look at /36mpg production if a player averages MORE than 36mpg.

I think that normalization to 40mpg is ridiculous. VERY few, if any, players play that many minutes for a reason.

bob

.

The stats per minute are not intended as predictions of how well a given player would do if he got more minutes. They're simply a measure of how well he's done with the minutes he's been given, but "normalized" to measure player performance with a common frame of reference.

As a professional statistician who has been very critical of how many NBA stats lack appropriate context, this is one stat that I generally endorse. NOT (as I said) for predictive reasons but for reasons of comparability between players and comparability of a player with himself over time.

Sam

bobheckler wrote:

beat wrote:Bob

To sum it up we RAN and moved the ball, took it to the hoop and did NOT stand there and pound it. Everyone ran (with the exception of perhaps Davis when he posted up and made a few inside moves, some worked but his damn fade a way was always comming up front rim.

It wasn't at all like fast break stuff either although there was a little of that. Once we optained possession the ball got into the hands of Wafer or Arroyo and then either they RAN up the court on the dribble or if open they hit a player in the frontcourt on the wing and filled lanes putting the knicks is defensive disaray. SO if the Knicks whom were back collapsed to protect the paint we had trailers to hit the outside and if they ran out to cover them we simply took it to the hoop or moved it around the horn.

Bradley went by everyone several layups and dunks, Plus a few nice jumpers from outside.

Thing is we had open shots and shot well and relatively early in the shot clock too. I don;t remember a shot being forced out of desperation due to a shot clock issue. These 8 played like they have played together all year not just a month plus.

We hit the boards well also and did not give the knicks too many second looks cept one time when someone (Williams maybe) got like 3 offensive rebounds off his own misses till Murph finally fouled him.

And speakingof Murph. He hit a three! Wonder if he was as shocked it went in as I was.

Arroyo played well as a point and Wafer let loose with his best RA imitation from the outside with the plus of taking it to the hole hard.

Sasha also played RA with his treys and again he spotted up and was hit with a pass and let fly, No hesitation.

Of course it took 82 games to get here. And now it's the playoffs and some of these guys won't even dress let alone see the floor. HOWEVER if needed I would think Doc would be a little more at ease putting them in for a bit after the way they played the past 2 games. Even though there are at least 1 day off between games we still need to be mindfull of minutes and give our starters as much rest as possible.


I really don't think we have had a game this year where are offensive looked this good with the appearance of not running plays yet we got open looks consistantly. Then to consider our top 4 players along with the ONeal twins or West did not set foot on the court.

The new/next journey begins on Sunday!

IT'S ALL ABOUT 18

beat

beat,

Thanks for the update. I actually posted a response (or, at least, thought I posted one) but when I came back to read pygme's post I didn't see mine, so I'm trying to recreate it here.

We both had 85 fga. That's a healthy number, SIGNIFICANTLY healthier than the ones we've been seeing for a few weeks now, and quite impressive when you match it up against Mike D'Antoni's run-and-gun offense.

I looked at Bradley's shot chart. He was very active from all over the floor. Took it inside quite a bit, as well as from range. I still don't think Doc will keep him on the playoff roster though. For better or worse, I expect he's going to go with Arroyo's experience. From the sounds of it, though, Bradley made his case for why Danny dug in his heels and didn't want to include Bradley in any of the various trade scenarios that were being batted around pre-deadline. A future backcourt of Rondo and Bradley would be short, but extremely athletic. I'm glad to hear that Arroyo played point well, I was starting to get down on him some.

I think Wafer has found himself a home too. I think Doc likes him a lot and will want him around next year. It's a toss-up between Sasha and Wafer for that playoff spot, although I think Sasha's got the edge because he is big enough to play 3, while that's a stretch for Wafer, and Sasha showed last night that he can shoot from range like Wafer too. Still, when I think about it, who would do better jobs playing the following players: DWade, LBJ, Miller, Jefferson, Korver and Deng? I could see Wafer doing a good job on Wade, Korver and maybe even LBJ (force him to shoot from outside and not let him put the ball on the floor) but Sasha could do Korver, Miller, Jefferson and Deng. I'm not sure Wafer could handle Deng. We also have to consider the "feisty factor" too. Who's more likely to woof back at Barnes, Gibson and Brewer? I think playoff rosters have to be set today, so we won't have to wait long to find out.

I hope the starters watched from the bench and were both inspired and a bit chagrined as they watched the scrubs play the way the starters should have been playing for weeks now.

bob

.

bob, beat

I've always wanted to see more of Wafer, I see him more as a 2 than a swingman 2/3. I've liked Jeff Green since we acquired him, hes the prototypical 3; well better late than never, I think Avery Bradley had a coming out party, the kid has blazing speed and is stronger than Rondo. With a summer of work, I'm hoping he can be a sparkplug for us next season, I'm expecting him to earn his way into the rotation. Wafer had a coming out party in our last victory over Heat, we don't come close to winning that game without his contributions, then he got injured. Hes got a burst and a great looking 3 and hes into playing team ball, in a perfect world he could train all summer with Ray and Paul, and especially work on his perimeter shot like Ray, getting the routine down.

If all 3 can make a jump in their level, were looking really good at the 1, 2 and 3, Rondo, Ray, Pierce, AB, Wafer, Green.....plus Delonte, hows that for depth for next season? We could be so deep with whats already here and with hard work in a few years I could see Wafer and Green replacing Ray and Paul. Danny actually did a great job of acquiring this young talent to further play and develop with the Big 4 and who better to learn from and emulate?

cow