Summer Forecast: Focus on Lee

By Chris Forsberg | ESPNBoston.com

Courtney Lee went strong to the basket against the Celtics during his time with the Magic.
When Ray Allen spurned the Celtics to sign with the rival Heat, Boston put a renewed focus on adding a frontline shooting guard. Even with Jason Terry in the fold, the uncertainty surrounding Avery Bradley's health (offseason shoulder surgery) left Boston committed to adding another starter-caliber player at that position.

SUMMER FORECAST

For three weeks in August we'll break up the summer doldrums by trying to predict exactly how the 2012-13 season will play out for the Boston Celtics.

It took a little bit of creativity but, after sign-and-trade options with the Dallas Mavericks that might have freed the midlevel exception were exhausted, the Celtics cobbled together a package of end-of-the-bench players JaJuan Johnson, E'Twaun Moore, Sasha Pavlovic, and Sean Williams -- along with a heaping of second-round draft picks -- to facilitate a three-team, sign-and-trade deal that allowed them to ink Lee at a midlevel-like number.

The Celtics bring in a 26-year-old with plenty of potential, someone that gives the team the additional versatility they coveted. Lee is a nice complement to Bradley, providing additional size (6-foot-5) and a consistent outside shot (even if we saw bursts of that from Bradley) and Doc Rivers will have the flexibility to mix-and-match the pair as desired when both are healthy.

Our expectations for Lee? He'll get a chance to compete in camp for a starting gig, especially if Bradley simply isn't ready for the start of the season. After shooting better than 40 percent from beyond the arc in three of his four NBA seasons, he and Terry will help offset the perimeter shooting that departed with Allen. His youth and athleticism will help as well as a once-aged team has made great strides to get younger.

There are some minor red flags with Lee. He's on his fourth team in five years, but this new four-year, $21+ million deal offers some longer-term security and clearly the Celtics think his best years are in front of him. His rebounding numbers dipped last season (3.3 total per game; 5.2 rebounding percentage) and that number has to go up for an athletic 6-foot-5 wing.

Bottom line: Reserve role or starter, he's got qualities that can help this team. Lee is the sort of free agent the team had no business being able to hook after the Terry deal, but they found a way to bring him in and are a deeper and better team because of it.

Read on for our panel predictions:


Greg Payne, ESPN Boston

Courtney Lee will be invaluable to the Celtics this season because he'll do whatever they need him to do. He's a great example of a player who might not do any one particular thing great, but instead does so many different things really well. His shooting and overall playmaking ability will make him the frontrunner to start while Avery Bradley's on the mend, and, assuming the C's click with him lacing them up alongside Rajon Rondo, he could easily remain in the first five once everyone's healthy. I sound like a broken record using the word versatility, but Lee's another great example of that, as he'll be a quality contributor in so many different areas, and, at 6-foot-5, he'll play multiple positions. He's the ultimate filler-like player to have, because he's more talented than most players who usually land such a role, and he'll help to mask most of the Celtics' deficiencies. It wouldn't shock me one bit if, halfway through the season, we're praising Lee as the unsung MVP of this team.


Brendan Jackson, CelticsHub

The best expectation for Courtney Lee is that he'll slide into the prototypical "3 and D" role off the bench. Last season, Lee shot over 40 percent from beyond the arc with nearly 4 attempts per game. Not exactly Ray Allen numbers, but luckily he won't be asked to be the offensive focal point that Allen was. On the defensive end, Lee's numbers don't exactly scream "lockdown," but at worst they are comparable to Allen in terms of defending opposing shooting guards (based on opposing SGs PER). Lee also has the ability to provide something that the Celtics were sorely lacking with Allen: quickness and athleticism. Ultimately, I expect Lee to mostly contribute with those two aforementioned attributes while falling slightly short of being that pure, Bruce Bowen-type "3 and D" player.


Jordan Higgs, Celtics Town

First and foremost, I expect Lee to start on opening night. Whether he holds onto that position once Bradley returns (and there are arguments to be had both ways) is up in the air. Either way, Lee helps. The guard rotation would have been messy and a bit undersized without him. After Bradley recovers from surgery Lee’s minutes will take a hit, but wherever he lands in the rotation I expect him to play about 20-25 minutes a night and give the Celtics a scoring boost with 10 points or so. (Lee has averaged about 27 minutes and 10 ppg for his career, but should be able to get better looks with a point guard like Rondo). Lee also completes a devastating defensive backcourt trio (along with Rondo and Bradley) that opponents will rapidly grow to loathe. I think Lee will see a lot of playing time in a high-octane small-ball bench lineup alongside Rondo, Bradley, Green and Wilcox. Coach Doc Rivers started tinkering with small lineups toward the end of last season -- now he has the personnel to fully utilize them, which should be quite exciting.


Jon Duke, CSL

A lot of Celtics fans have high hopes for Courtney Lee, and while I think he'll be a solid contributor, the idea that he'll be the starting shooting guard here after Avery Bradley returns from shoulder surgery is silly. Bradley's ability to be an All-NBA defender, devastating cutter, and 40-percent shooter from 3-point territory put him a cut above Lee once Bradley is healthy. However, the beauty of acquiring Lee is not only mitigate any risk should Bradley be unable to return as quickly as he'd like, but also provide some length to a backcourt the Oompa Loompas could post up. Lee isn't a beefy 6-5, but he provides more flexibility and dependability for Doc Rivers. At no point since the arrival of Kevin Garnett have the Celtics had more than a single guard off the bench that Doc could call on and know precisely what he'd provide.


Sean Bakke, CLNS Radio

After moonlighting as a starter for the first few months of the season while Avery Bradley recovers from his shoulder surgeries, I fully expect that newest Celtic guard Courtney Lee will slide right into a prolific role off of Doc Rivers' bench. He will provide a much needed scoring punch that the Celtics have sorely lacked for the past two or three seasons when the starters leave the floor. Let's not get overzealous here, it's not like Lee has been a 20 point per game scorer during his brief four-year career. That said, he has been deft at creating his own shot to the tune of over 10 points per game and I am a big fan of his size. I am a big fan of this move for more than just his offense as he likes to dig in on the defensive end as well which should appease his defensive-minded coach. That alone makes him a good fit in Boston, never mind that he can shoot the rock too. He will be an anchor on what looks to be one of the strongest benches in the Eastern Conference, perhaps the entire league. Between him and Terry, they will make Celtics fans forget all about Ray Allen.

112288

Due to Bradley's surgery, we need Lee. Having said that, I really don't understand what is soooo special about him. Is he really better than E'Tuan Moore? Same size, Moore's defense was improving.

I go back to the statement made by Kris Joseph, on another thread, where he said something to the effect of "while you want to be good at everything you want to be great at one thing". I absolutely, positively agree with this. You don't want to have any glaring, significant weaknesses and you want to be unstoppable in at least one thing. Greg Payne of ESPN Boston said, above, "He's a great example of a player who might not do any one particular thing great, but instead does so many different things really well". Sounds a lot like Keyon Dooling too, doesn't it?

Another "3 and D" player on the Celtics. Like Sasha (without Sasha's size) and Pietrus.

Well, the purpose of the bench is to "hold the fort" while the starters rest, right? Well, when Bradley comes back and Lee goes to the bench, he has the solid all-round game that won't impress but can hold his own against the other team's 2nd string. I should be satisfied with that. He's doing the job we got him for, to play 20 minutes off the bench and hold the fort. For mid-level money.

bob

.

Bob,

I can't completely agree that the role of the bench is to hold the fort while the starters rest. In fact, I could make a good argument that the reverse could be true. My reasoning is that I believe the bench should have a greater advantage over opponents' benches than the Celtics starters should have over opponents' starters. Since I don't mind at all using the +/- stat when five-man combos are concerned, it would be interesting to compare the +/- for the bench as a whole over the +/- of the starters as a whole. (Since Doc often has at least one starter playing with the bench, that could muddy such an analysis. But you know what I mean.

Furthermore, I believe the bench could have another function that goes well beyond being place-holders. They have the potential to become a fast-breaking juggernaut that will eventuate in opponents (rather than the Celtics for a change) becoming fatigued down the stretch. Just like the days of the Jones boys, it could be demoralizing for opponents to see the bench ratcheting up the tempo as replacements for the starters. This could also be a reason why we could see Rondo doing double duty by spending some time with the starters and some with the bench. I won't be shocked to see Terry spelling Rondo for a few minutes per game with the starters.

They have loads of versatility and interchangeability. I'd be peeing my pants in anticipation if I were Doc. Oops, I'm doing it anyway.

Sam

sam wrote:Bob,

I can't completely agree that the role of the bench is to hold the fort while the starters rest. In fact, I could make a good argument that the reverse could be true. My reasoning is that I believe the bench should have a greater advantage over opponents' benches than the Celtics starters should have over opponents' starters. Since I don't mind at all using the +/- stat when five-man combos are concerned, it would be interesting to compare the +/- for the bench as a whole over the +/- of the starters as a whole. (Since Doc often has at least one starter playing with the bench, that could muddy such an analysis. But you know what I mean.

Furthermore, I believe the bench could have another function that goes well beyond being place-holders. They have the potential to become a fast-breaking juggernaut that will eventuate in opponents (rather than the Celtics for a change) becoming fatigued down the stretch. Just like the days of the Jones boys, it could be demoralizing for opponents to see the bench ratcheting up the tempo as replacements for the starters. This could also be a reason why we could see Rondo doing double duty by spending some time with the starters and some with the bench. I won't be shocked to see Terry spelling Rondo for a few minutes per game with the starters.

They have loads of versatility and interchangeability. I'd be peeing my pants in anticipation if I were Doc. Oops, I'm doing it anyway.

Sam

sam,

Bench players play fewer minutes than starters (usually). Their ability to impact the game is, therefore, harder. Could our bench overpower their bench? Sure. It'd be great if they come in when we have a 3 point lead and have it be 7 when they sit down but to expect much more than that would require two assumptions: 1, that Doc leaves them out there for an extended period and; 2, that the opposing coach doesn't see that he's in trouble and beefs up his second unit with another starter sooner than he might otherwise.

The possibility of Doc playing his bench longer minutes is very real. He's got Jason Terry (who averaged 31mpg last season), and Lee (who averaged 30mpg last season) and Green (who averaged almost 24mpg in his half-season with the Celts, but could play more) so he's got players that are used to being on the court for extended shifts. This brings us to #2. Our bench playing against a beefed-up opponent's bench could produce some issues that compel a change in style, like less running in order to gain on transition defense.

I, too, am salivating at the prospect of a running team with Green, Lee, Joseph, Rondo, Bradley, Xmas (?) being on the floor together at one time or another. It has been a long time since we could legitimately call ourselves a "running team", as opposed to a team that "ran opportunistically". With these players the opportunity to run is all the time.

bob

.

Bob Sam

I remember Red liked to have perhaps a better player on the bench that at least one of the starters (ie the famous 6th man) started by Ramsey continued on with Hondo and then McHale for a bit.

Given that thought sure looked like Red expected to not only hold fort he expected to dominate once the benchs got their time.

When (not if) we are all healthy could this be a possibility again? Perhaps the difference between the starter and the bench player won't be near as much as years past but would it be so far to believe that with the interchangable parts it could happen again.

Seems we have several "tweeners" not reall big enough for this spot but bigger than average in another or perhaps a bit slow for that spot but fast for the other spot they can play.

Given the age of PP and KG the bench will need to play longer minutes. (this is a recording) There are 240 player minutes in a game. 8 players playing 30 minutes a game covers that. With our depth there is no reason to wear out anyone. No one on this team aside from Rondo perhaps should need to average more than 35 mpg. Id love to see us get by with PP and KG with no more than 30 top.

So when is the preseason???

I'm ready now!

beat

beat wrote:Bob Sam

I remember Red liked to have perhaps a better player on the bench that at least one of the starters (ie the famous 6th man) started by Ramsey continued on with Hondo and then McHale for a bit.

Given that thought sure looked like Red expected to not only hold fort he expected to dominate once the benchs got their time.

When (not if) we are all healthy could this be a possibility again? Perhaps the difference between the starter and the bench player won't be near as much as years past but would it be so far to believe that with the interchangable parts it could happen again.

Seems we have several "tweeners" not reall big enough for this spot but bigger than average in another or perhaps a bit slow for that spot but fast for the other spot they can play.

Given the age of PP and KG the bench will need to play longer minutes. (this is a recording) There are 240 player minutes in a game. 8 players playing 30 minutes a game covers that. With our depth there is no reason to wear out anyone. No one on this team aside from Rondo perhaps should need to average more than 35 mpg. Id love to see us get by with PP and KG with no more than 30 top.

So when is the preseason???

I'm ready now!

beat

beat,

Yes, the famous 6th man was a player that could have started on other teams. We have Jason Terry, who could probably do that. I believe Lee started in Houston last year, he certainly played the minutes for it (Houston sucked last year though, so I'm not sure that's necessarily saying much) and Green was a starter on a pretty damn good OKC that was too young to go deeper into the playoffs at the time (I'm assumng that Green comes back as strong as before).

So, there's 8 players who could do 30. Unfortunately, those 8 only have one center and two players that could play PF (Bass and Green) but they're both a bit undersized for that. Put simply these 8, playing that many minutes each, equals a lot of smallball.

bob

.

Bob

Very few teams in the NBA have a back up Center who could go 30 mpg and be productive, so not sure that is a fair criteria.

Melo and Collins are solid back up Centers - you can add Sully to the guys that could play PF against certain line ups, so while the C's dont have an experienced group of bigs off the bench....I dont know many teams that do.

For the record, Frank Ramsey wasn't the Celtics' first sixth man, although he was certainly one of the best. In one of his books, Red did mention the name of the first sixth man on his Washington Capitols team in the old BAA. Whether Red originated the strategy or copied it from his college coach, Bill Reinhart, we may never know.

Based on his track record, JET is the best bet to etch his name alongside Ramsey, Havlicek, Silas, McHale, and Walton, as the next great sixth man.

Besides the sixth man, all Red's teams back in those days also had a full court press unit, made up of nonstarters, that he would call on for three or so minutes of defensive terror. The full court press is another one of the lost arts of the NBA. It should be noted that. when it was used in the Olympics, it was very exciting and usually effective. With the deepest bench in the league, and a destructive defender such as Bradley, maybe Doc should bring it back.

Spike

even that Pitino dude used the press with limited success when he coached the Knicks.

For the most part teams really are not prepared for that as it's is seldom done

beat

mrkleen09 wrote:Bob

Very few teams in the NBA have a back up Center who could go 30 mpg and be productive, so not sure that is a fair criteria.

Melo and Collins are solid back up Centers - you can add Sully to the guys that could play PF against certain line ups, so while the C's dont have an experienced group of bigs off the bench....I dont know many teams that do.

mrkleen,

I agree with your point about how few teams have a backup center that can play 30mpg productively (Philly just joined that small club) but that was not the point I was trying to make. I was responding to beat's statement about how 8 players playing 30 minutes each covers the 240 total minutes in a game. I listed our top 8 players most capable of playing 30 productive minutes per game (our starting 5 + the 3 bench players I discussed). I concluded (perhaps too softly) that those 8 players would be an unbalanced team and therefore beat's formula wouldn't work well.

If we add players like Sully, although we don't know yet how many productive minutes he can play, then it's 240/9. If we also add depth at center (I'd use Wilcox instead of Collins and/or Melo), then it becomes 240/10. Since these minutes will not be distributed democratically (i.e. starters will get more than bench), it's reasonable to assume that some players will get significantly less than 30mpg (or 26+ with 9 players or 24 with 10, etc). The point I was trying to make, not very well indeed, was that even keeping the starters' times down to 30mpg would still force us to play other players less than 30 since we'd need to divided the remaining 90mpg up among more than 3 players.

We are not in disagreement. Quite the contrary, you were dead on and I was and am on board with what you are saying, I just didn't do a good job of following through on my point which was...

beat's 8 x 30 doesn't work except with a calculator.

bob

.

Bob

The example was just to slice up numbers not names. Id love to see us go 10 deep regularly. With Rondo the only one over 30 per game. We have the depth to do that now. At least it appears we do on paper but on the court is an entirely different matter.

As a side always wondered if a major league baseball could get a pitching staff full of good relief pitchers, most staffs are 13 deep or so. Have no pitcher go more than 3 innings tops maybe only 2. You could still have that ace closer like now. The others would perhaps pitch every 3 or 4th day but only be going short innings. Just wonder if the arms would hold up and would any team ever consider trying it.

beat

beat wrote:Bob

The example was just to slice up numbers not names. Id love to see us go 10 deep regularly. With Rondo the only one over 30 per game. We have the depth to do that now. At least it appears we do on paper but on the court is an entirely different matter.

As a side always wondered if a major league baseball could get a pitching staff full of good relief pitchers, most staffs are 13 deep or so. Have no pitcher go more than 3 innings tops maybe only 2. You could still have that ace closer like now. The others would perhaps pitch every 3 or 4th day but only be going short innings. Just wonder if the arms would hold up and would any team ever consider trying it.

beat

beat,

What about rhthym? A pitcher starts, has a rocky inning or two and by the time he gets past the meat of the order and starts getting his rhthym, he's pulled. I would think that'd be disruptive in a number of ways.

Personally, I don't know why b-ball players aren't ready to come in and go 100% at any moment. It's not that long a game nor is it like baseball where a utility infielder may not get in until the late innings (for defense, or to replace a pinch hitter). If Bass picks up 2 quick fouls, in you go Sully, just like that! The reality, though, is that they aren't. How many times have seen, not just with the Celtics, a team starts off looking sluggish and confused? How many times have seen Pierce look bad for the 1st half and then explode in the 2nd. It just is.

I'm loving our overall depth (not so much at center. KG, Wilcox, Collins and Melo is definitely deep, I'm just leery of relying on Collins and Melo for much) but this is not a democracy. You're not going to see anything remotely close to an even division of minutes, not even among the bench.

To me, Chris Wilcox is the linchpin. If he stays healthy and can play 18 productive mpg (he averaged a little over 17mpg last year before he had his heart issue), then we're good, because that lets KG play a maximum of 30mpg at center. We have a ton of depth in the backcourt and in the wings (RR, AB, CL, J(e)T, KD, Xmas, PP, JG, KJ). We have enough depth at 4 (BB, JS and JG can play 4 too). Where we cannot afford injuries is at 5 (except for Melo and/or Collins). If KG or Wilcox go down, we have problems.

bob

.

rickdavisakaspike wrote:Besides the sixth man, all Red's teams back in those days also had a full court press unit, made up of nonstarters, that he would call on for three or so minutes of defensive terror. The full court press is another one of the lost arts of the NBA. It should be noted that. when it was used in the Olympics, it was very exciting and usually effective. With the deepest bench in the league, and a destructive defender such as Bradley, maybe Doc should bring it back.

The reason it's not used much anymore is that it's not effective and is counter to the preferred strategy, which is to fall back, minimize transition opportunities, and force the opponent to run half-court sets against a set defense as much as possible. Whether it was effective in the Olympics, I can't say because I didn't watch that many games and didn't notice it used in the games I watched, but I can say I didn't see it at all in the game against Spain. Maybe they used it against a patently inferior team, but it wouldn't work against a team like Spain.

Basketball has changed a lot over the years, and strategies have, too. We're not likely to see fastbreaking like the Auerbach Celtics or Showtime Lakers again because defenses are designed to stop that. We're also not likely to see full-court presses anymore because opponents know how to beat it. Every strategy has strengths and weaknesses, and the weakness of the full-court press is vulnerability to easy transition baskets once you break the press. Coaches believe that the plus of easy baskets off steals isn't enough to outweigh the minus of the opponent getting their own easy baskets, and until someone actually proves otherwise, 3-4 guys will be falling back on D whenever a shot is taken.

What teams in general and the Celtics in particular can take advantage of is pressure by 1-2 guys as the opponent brings the ball upcourt. Rondo and Bradley are the obvious candidates, but guys like Green, Terry, and Lee can also participate in that. The pressure can sometimes result in turnovers, but it also has the benefit of eating up the opponent's shot clock and forcing them to initiate the offense from farther out. That's all good stuff that the Celtics should excel at and is the modern equivalent of the full-court press.

Outside

Outside wrote:

rickdavisakaspike wrote:Besides the sixth man, all Red's teams back in those days also had a full court press unit, made up of nonstarters, that he would call on for three or so minutes of defensive terror. The full court press is another one of the lost arts of the NBA. It should be noted that. when it was used in the Olympics, it was very exciting and usually effective. With the deepest bench in the league, and a destructive defender such as Bradley, maybe Doc should bring it back.

The reason it's not used much anymore is that it's not effective and is counter to the preferred strategy, which is to fall back, minimize transition opportunities, and force the opponent to run half-court sets against a set defense as much as possible. Whether it was effective in the Olympics, I can't say because I didn't watch that many games and didn't notice it used in the games I watched, but I can say I didn't see it at all in the game against Spain. Maybe they used it against a patently inferior team, but it wouldn't work against a team like Spain.

Basketball has changed a lot over the years, and strategies have, too. We're not likely to see fastbreaking like the Auerbach Celtics or Showtime Lakers again because defenses are designed to stop that. We're also not likely to see full-court presses anymore because opponents know how to beat it. Every strategy has strengths and weaknesses, and the weakness of the full-court press is vulnerability to easy transition baskets once you break the press. Coaches believe that the plus of easy baskets off steals isn't enough to outweigh the minus of the opponent getting their own easy baskets, and until someone actually proves otherwise, 3-4 guys will be falling back on D whenever a shot is taken.

What teams in general and the Celtics in particular can take advantage of is pressure by 1-2 guys as the opponent brings the ball upcourt. Rondo and Bradley are the obvious candidates, but guys like Green, Terry, and Lee can also participate in that. The pressure can sometimes result in turnovers, but it also has the benefit of eating up the opponent's shot clock and forcing them to initiate the offense from farther out. That's all good stuff that the Celtics should excel at and is the modern equivalent of the full-court press.

Outside

Bingo!

Defense is often about limiting the offensive team's options. Forcing them to waste 9-10 seconds off a 24 second click just to get the ball to the top of the key makes the defensive coach's job a whole lot easier for those last 14-15 seconds. There's only so many cuts, so many passes, so many resets you can execute in 14 seconds and the more you can make them waste their time on non-productive motion and get the clock down to the last 3-4 seconds or so the easier it is because 4 seconds left means one pass and one pass only and 3 seconds might not even mean that.

bob


.

Lots of good stuff on this thread.

Outside, I believe your last paragraph is the key one in your most recent post. A limited press (with the two guards pressing and the other three guys protecting the basket) is seldom used to create turnovers (although I'm not sure Bradley knows that, and I hope he never finds out). It's used (1) to disrupt the opponent's rhythm, (2) to eat up the opponent's 24-second clock, (3) to force the opponent's less effective ballhanders to bring the ball up, and (4) for shock value to slam a door on the opponent's momentum. Doc used it with varying degrees of effectiveness last season, and I hope we see more of it this season.

I recall one "big" game (there were almost certainly more) when Red installed the press to open the game. I can't recall which game it was or even who the opponents were, but they never recovered from the shock of having the starch taken out of them right at the outset.

BobH,

I think you're right on the money about Wilcox being the linchpin to 48 minutes of energy at the center position. I have some concerns about his being injury-prone. But, even if they get two solid months out of him early in the season, it will buy time for Collins and/or Melo to get a lot of practice time and learn the system. (And I still believe the Celtics will have another center candidate with them during training camp.)

As I've said elsewhere, I think a couple of months of practice with the Celtics early in the season would be preferable to those same months in the DL for the Celtics' young guys. Once Doc has his rotation pretty well set (hopefully including Bradley) there will be plenty of time to use the DL.

I went to 82Games and found the following info on starting units (which I defined as the units with the most minutes together on the floor for the five teams I included in my search).

The number of "plus" points per minute last year were:

+0.11 for the starting unit of KG, Pierce, Allen, Bass and Rondo
+0.14 for the most frequent starting unit of the Lakers
+0.20 for the most frequent starting unit of the Heat
+0.30 for the most frequent starting unit of the 76ers
+0.35 for the most frequent starting unit of the Bulls (including Love)
+0.37 for the starting unit of KG, Pierce, Bradley, Bass and Rondo

Obviously, the comparisons aren't "pure" because of the variability in competition (particularly with the Lakers playing in a different conference than the other four teams). But I thought the difference between the Celtics' lineups with Ray vs. Avery was interesting.

It appears that a starting unit including Bradley stands a greater chance of establishing a lead that the bench could build upon, whereas last year's starting unit including Ray was much more likely to be not much better than equal to the opposition—placing more pressure on the Celtic bench to halt skids or gain some momentum (which we know they didn't do all that well). It'll be interesting to see how a starting unit including Lee will fare and what the implications will be for the second unit.

Sam

bobheckler wrote:

We are not in disagreement. Quite the contrary

.

Thanks for the clarification

sam wrote:Lots of good stuff on this thread.

Outside, I believe your last paragraph is the key one in your most recent post. A limited press (with the two guards pressing and the other three guys protecting the basket) is seldom used to create turnovers (although I'm not sure Bradley knows that, and I hope he never finds out). It's used (1) to disrupt the opponent's rhythm, (2) to eat up the opponent's 24-second clock, (3) to force the opponent's less effective ballhanders to bring the ball up, and (4) for shock value to slam a door on the opponent's momentum. Doc used it with varying degrees of effectiveness last season, and I hope we see more of it this season.

I recall one "big" game (there were almost certainly more) when Red installed the press to open the game. I can't recall which game it was or even who the opponents were, but they never recovered from the shock of having the starch taken out of them right at the outset.

BobH,

I think you're right on the money about Wilcox being the linchpin to 48 minutes of energy at the center position. I have some concerns about his being injury-prone. But, even if they get two solid months out of him early in the season, it will buy time for Collins and/or Melo to get a lot of practice time and learn the system. (And I still believe the Celtics will have another center candidate with them during training camp.)

As I've said elsewhere, I think a couple of months of practice with the Celtics early in the season would be preferable to those same months in the DL for the Celtics' young guys. Once Doc has his rotation pretty well set (hopefully including Bradley) there will be plenty of time to use the DL.

I went to 82Games and found the following info on starting units (which I defined as the units with the most minutes together on the floor for the five teams I included in my search).

The number of "plus" points per minute last year were:

+0.11 for the starting unit of KG, Pierce, Allen, Bass and Rondo
+0.14 for the most frequent starting unit of the Lakers
+0.20 for the most frequent starting unit of the Heat
+0.30 for the most frequent starting unit of the 76ers
+0.35 for the most frequent starting unit of the Bulls (including Love)
+0.37 for the starting unit of KG, Pierce, Bradley, Bass and Rondo

Obviously, the comparisons aren't "pure" because of the variability in competition (particularly with the Lakers playing in a different conference than the other four teams). But I thought the difference between the Celtics' lineups with Ray vs. Avery was interesting.

It appears that a starting unit including Bradley stands a greater chance of establishing a lead that the bench could build upon, whereas last year's starting unit including Ray was much more likely to be not much better than equal to the opposition—placing more pressure on the Celtic bench to halt skids or gain some momentum (which we know they didn't do all that well). It'll be interesting to see how a starting unit including Lee will fare and what the implications will be for the second unit.

Sam

sam,

If you are referring to the Bulls lineup including Love, Bob Love retired many years ago. Kevin Love plays for Minny.

The Lakers now have the offensive genius/defensively non-existent Steve Nash instead of Derek Fisher or Ramon Sessions (I don't know which Laker lineup you used above) and Dwight Howard instead of Bynum. How Howard will play when he comes back from back surgery, missing the entire training camp and pre-season, remains to be seen. Miami also has a new look, with the addition of Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis.

I think the point that comes through the most clearly is that the Celtics starting lineup with Bradley is an improvement and that makes life easier for the bench. As long as we don't have a run of meningitis or some other season ending issue attacking multiple Celtic players our bench is stronger this year. A stronger starting lineup, as you showed above, and a stronger deeper bench. We always knew that there would come a day when at least one of the 3 Amigos would no longer be able to dominate their position. I think we all thought it would be KG or Pierce and not Ray. I wonder how Pierce will respond if his game starts to slip and Jeff Green is finally fulfilling his potential.



bob


.

Bob,

Sorry, I mean Rose. Rose, Love, it all sounds like a James Bond movie to me.

I wasn't trying to project last year to this year, as I certainly know the lineups have changed. I was simply using the most recently available data as a context for demonstrating that the pressure on the bench can differ by starting unit. Hopefully, this season, the starting unit (with Bradley and/or maybe even Lee) can maintain the "Bradleyesque" advantage of last season AND the bench can seriously outperform the bench of last season. That kind of double impetus could put the team in a pretty good position.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about Pierce. I wouldn't want the Celtics to be going into this season without his professionalism and his ability to rise to challenges. But he happens to play the same position as Lebron, and Bron is figuratively and literally flying high while Paul is slowly sliding a bit. Moreover, the Celtics seem to be moving increasingly in an uptempo direction while Paul obviously is not (and never really has).

I think this places a premium on the importance of Jeff Green (and maybe even Joseph) contributing not only minutes but also IMPACT minutes that will hopefully allow Doc to give Paul something like the five-on five-off treatment that he has previously reserved for KG. I think it's going to be vitally important for this team not to have to depend on Paul digging down so deep for reserves that may no longer be there.

Sam

sam,

See my comments on another thread about this love (not Bob or Kevin) affair you're having with Kris Joseph.

Does Mrs. Sam know?

bob

.

Bob,

Kris could be a female name, couldn't it? Hmm.

I have a funny story in that vein. Before we went to Vienna in April, I went online to buy two tickets to a Strauss-Mozart concert in a beautiful concert hall. In negotiating for the tickets and even exchanging them for a different date, I learned by email that the person at the other end was also a violinist in the orchestra. So I issued an invitation to Kirsten be our guest for dinner after the concert. The invitation was accepted, and we arranged to meet at the front door to the building.

On the night of the concert, the hall lived up to its billing. The musicians paraded onto the stage, and my wife and I looked at one another and asked in unison, "Where's Kirsten? There's not a single female in the violin section." (I know you can already guess what's coming.) My wife didn't care much because she spotted a violinist she thought was "hot." But I was beside myself as my plans seemed to be falling apart. We knew that they rotated musicians and guessed that Kirsten wasn't playing that evening. But we still hoped that she'd show up for dinner.

After the concert, we dutifully went to the front door and waited. Finally, I dialed a cell number Kirsten had provided, and this deep voice answered. I asked if Kirsten was there, and the voice said "I'm walking toward you at this moment." Sure enough, Kirsten turned out to be the "hot" guy my wife had been ogling. We went out to a great beer hall for dinner, discussed our entire lives (his English is quite good) and are now Facebook friends with Kirsten and his wife. We hope they'll visit us on Cape Cod at some point.

Talk about judging a book by its cover!

Sam

sam wrote:Bob,

Kris could be a female name, couldn't it? Hmm.

I have a funny story in that vein. Before we went to Vienna in April, I went online to buy two tickets to a Strauss-Mozart concert in a beautiful concert hall. In negotiating for the tickets and even exchanging them for a different date, I learned by email that the person at the other end was also a violinist in the orchestra. So I issued an invitation to Kirsten be our guest for dinner after the concert. The invitation was accepted, and we arranged to meet at the front door to the building.

On the night of the concert, the hall lived up to its billing. The musicians paraded onto the stage, and my wife and I looked at one another and asked in unison, "Where's Kirsten? There's not a single female in the violin section." (I know you can already guess what's coming.) My wife didn't care much because she spotted a violinist she thought was "hot." But I was beside myself as my plans seemed to be falling apart. We knew that they rotated musicians and guessed that Kirsten wasn't playing that evening. But we still hoped that she'd show up for dinner.

After the concert, we dutifully went to the front door and waited. Finally, I dialed a cell number Kirsten had provided, and this deep voice answered. I asked if Kirsten was there, and the voice said "I'm walking toward you at this moment." Sure enough, Kirsten turned out to be the "hot" guy my wife had been ogling. We went out to a great beer hall for dinner, discussed our entire lives (his English is quite good) and are now Facebook friends with Kirsten and his wife. We hope they'll visit us on Cape Cod at some point.

Talk about judging a book by its cover!

Sam

sam,

A Strauss/Mozart concert in an impressive venue in their hometown of Vienna and then hanging out with one of the concert's violinists later? Perfect.

Last summer I attended a major gypsy jazz festival in France. My friend and I then hung out with the gypsies at their trailers in the campground afterwards and listened to them jam. We actually know one of the best gypsy jazz guitarists in the US (he's a french gypsy who now resides in Brooklyn) and was there in Samois-sur-Seine, hometown of the godfather of modern gypsy jazz Django Rheinhart, for the festival and was jamming at the campground with other gypsies and guitarists from around Europe who had gathered there. Not as classy as your experience (and I do love classical music and Mozart and magnificent concert halls) but perfect for what it was. As far as Strauss goes, I prefer gypsy and Cajun waltzes. Same 1-2-3, 1-2-3 but a little lighter and less formal. That's me to a tee.

bob


.