Celtics bench has to step up when the veterans are weary

BOSTON.COM
By Gary Washburn


Sunday night was one of those situations that Danny Ainge prepared for this summer by stocking the Celtics bench with talent and youth.

It was Boston’s seventh game in 10 nights, the equivalent of the final day of double-time for the warehouse employee. It was going to be a grind, especially for 30-something starters Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, and Jason Terry.

The problem was, the youngsters (besides rookie Jared Sullinger) and depth players followed suit and played just as listless and exhausted. Ainge, the team’s president of basketball operations, signed Jeff Green to a long-term deal along with Courtney Lee and Leandro Barbosa to supplement the starters.

This was supposed to be one of those times when those three shined, taking the responsibility and onus for one night from the Hall of Famers. This was an important game in the grand scheme. The Celtics would much rather be 7-4 entering a two-game stretch with Western Conference powers San Antonio and Oklahoma City than 6-5, so while losing likely won’t derail their short-term plans, it was costly.

If the Celtics are going to be elite, they have to play elite more often. Blame fatigue or the heavy travel, but the Celtics lost to a Pistons team that entered 1-9 and had allowed 100 or more points in six games. The Celtics lost by 20 points (103-83) to a team whose coach — Lawrence Frank — may already be on the hot seat.

While the loss wasn’t devastating, it should not be dismissed. Boston had major troubles over the past few years with the second game of back-to-back sets, especially on the road. Age is a valid issue.

But the Celtics added younger players who shouldn’t be affected as much by heavy workloads. And yet the only Celtic who played with any passion was Sullinger, who led the team with 16 points in 27 minutes playing in front of family. Lee attempted two shots in 20 minutes. Green took five in 22 minutes. Barbosa, as can be expected, had no problem shooting but he missed five of his six attempts.

Fatigue because of age was an issue Ainge had been trying to avoid. That’s why replacing 37-year-old Ray Allen with 27-year-old Lee was supposed to inject enthusiasm. The impact of playing consecutive games and seven games in 10 days is legitimate. Games are grinds and the Celtics had no legs in Sunday’s loss.

But that’s when bench players, who play fewer minutes and seek opportunities to make an impact, have to emerge. Green and Lee especially have to be more aggressive and take more responsibility.

Championship-caliber teams have off nights and the Celtics are allowed to play poorly, but Boston didn’t look like a physically retooled team Sunday. Coach Doc Rivers advised his players to dismiss the defeat, get some rest Monday, and prepare Tuesday for the Spurs with a light practice.

Meanwhile, an NBA source acknowledged that Darko Milicic may miss an undetermined amount of time because his mother is ill, and he may not return to the team. The Celtics are being very sensitive with Milicic and there isn’t likely to be movement unless he makes a decision to remain in his native Serbia.

The Celtics thought they were getting a potential steal in Milicic because of his defensive prowess and shot-blocking, but he has played just five minutes all season. If he remains in Serbia, the Celtics could pursue another post option that could help with the team’s rebounding woes.

Boston is 30th in rebounding and could use a boost. Kenyon Martin, the much-traveled No. 1 overall pick in 2000, is a free agent and hasn’t bolted for China or other opportunities like some of his aging brethren.

Ainge signed Milicic and Jason Collins to add depth at center but neither is playing and that means Rivers doesn’t think they will be productive. If a roster spot opens, the Celtics should take a serious look at Martin.

The Celtics not only need big nights from the bench in blowout wins such as Saturday vs. Toronto, they need Green, Lee, or even Sullinger to assume control when the vets are weary. Ainge spent the offseason rebuilding the bench, making it younger and potentially more talented. And those additions can’t rely on the same excuses as the more accomplished Garnett, Pierce, Terry, and Rajon Rondo.

Perhaps that aggression will come with time.

112288

112288, To this I would add that Doc has to play the bench more consistently and revamp lineups if we're going to contend, and that runs counter to his instincts. This is a hard team to manage because unless we play 10-11 guys, we're not as good as some other good teams' 7 or 8. This year's Celts are an orchestra, and when we get that nice full sound we'll drown out any bar band. But the old Big-3, Big-4 thinking won't work any more. Green's biggest problem is confidence, probably Darko's, every DNP's too. The team isn't scoring well, challenging in the paint, still Green, in his prime, doesn't start. We're getting killed on the boards, but the old Number 2 Pick doesn't even get a minute. I wonder how that plays in Serbia? IMO, there's a disconnect between DA and Doc. Ainge gives Doc a pile of pretty good talent, but it's not easy to see how to use it. I think Doc has to deal with egos and take chances early in the season. Start Green and feed him the ball, play our bigs and bench, give a vet the night off on a btb. Experiment! Then when Bradley returns, maybe we'll kick into gear.

Hawk

That is a good point about 11 guys playing verses 7-8. Makes it more difficult unless Doc is doing this to weed out his top 7-8 for the playoff run.

I say start Green and see how he functions. Maybe he would fair better right out of the starting gate and get a better flow to his game.

It's all mental. The Detroit game he hesitated on several open shots and did not shoot. We got to hire Dr. Phil!!!

112288

Hawk and 112288,

I understand the reasoning of hoping that Green would be jump-started if he entered the starting lineup. (In a sense, it happened with Terry despite his reputation as a bench player.) But whom would you replace with Green in the starting lineup? And, if he and Pierce were both in the starting lineup, who would replace Pierce when he needs a blow?

Sam

Sam,

I would move Green to power forward to start the game.

112288

112288,

Ah, but if you say that, my second question (above) comes into play. With Green and Pierce both expending themselves in the starting lineup, with whom do you replace Pierce during the 15 mpg that he's not playing?

Ankle bone connected to the shin bone. There's always a ripple effect. And, as I said above, a lot can happen in 15 minutes.

Sam

Sam,

I said I would start him there but be does not have to end up the full game at power forward. Doc sometimes goes small and switches Green from small forward to power forward and sometimes center...so why not here. Green could slide from power forward to small forward and he would continue to be in the flow of the game.

You could also go semi small and have Lee play small forward...thereby getting more shooters and runners on the floor to speed up the pace.

112288

Sam and 112288,
I think I'd start Green at 3, along with Rondo, Lee (until Bradley returns), Wilcox and KG.
Then LB, JT, PP, BB, and JC. Some Sully with the second unit with Pierce moving to 2.
If that didn't produce better results, I'd experiment more - no one starts automatically but Rondo.
We're being killed on the boards and D because of lack of effort and size. Size is easier to fix than effort, but effort is fixable when everyone is expendable. I wouldn't make these moves without confiding first in Pierce, who would be the glue in the second unit.
Moving Pierce to the second unit might light a fire under both Green and Pierce.

Hawk and 112288,

The Celtics are scoring plenty of points. Their main problem is defense. To the extent that the offense sputters, it's because much of the Celtics offense has typically flowed from the defense.

The principal reason that the defense is out of kilter is that it's mathematically impossible for Doc to put a combination on the floor that does not include players new to the team. The great majority of the new Celtics (and I'm including those who were Celtics but were injured last season) are proving slow to grasp the intricacies and timing of the very complex defensive system.

And, frankly, the Celtics holdovers from the past aren't looking that great on defense either. A lot of that is because, if just one or two guys in a combination don't yet "get" the defensive system, the entire defense looks bad because the rotations involved in their defense necessitate every single Celtic on the floor being in synch with every other Celtic on the floor. A rotation missed by just one guy screws up the very fabric of their defense.

The number of botched or missed rotations last night was appalling. People were actually standing around or doing the turnstyle thing while Spurs went to the hoop unmolested. After the game, Doc complained about two things in particular: terrible rotations and awful pick-and-roll defense (in fact, it was practically nonexistent).

There’s no question in my mind that chemistry is the Celtics’ number one problem, just as I said it was both last year and the previous season when they came together toward the end of the season as I hoped they would. Earlier in this young season, sub-par offensive chemistry took center stage. Now the offense is at least satisfactory, but defensive chemistry (or lack of it) is the main culprit.

When chemistry is the problem, you don’t break up the only three guys on the team (KG, Pierce and Rondo) who have many years of experience together. What you do is to keep them as a core and use them as a foundation for getting the rest of the team to the point where they’re enabling the system rather than messing it up. Anyone who expects six rotation players who are basically new to the team to have some kind of overnight epiphany about the defensive system, think again. Another thing you don’t do (after a suitable period of experimentation at the beginning of the season) is to exacerbate the situation with all sorts of new combinations that are likely to result in poorer chemistry due to discontinuity in playing together.

Yet another thing you don’t do when the defense sucks is to abandon a part of the defense that has worked well in the past. I’m referring specifically to the “fall back after a Celtics shot” style that Doc prefers. People can complain all they want about lack of offensive rebounds, but frankly they’re going to sound like they’re not initiated into Doc’s rationale, and he’s definitely not changing it. He elaborated in his post-game conference last night:

“Honestly, we shot 53 percent, [so] there’s not going to be a lot of offensive boards," said Rivers. "You know what I mean? So I’m not that concerned by it. [The Spurs] shot 58 percent and they had six. So, you’re a big believer in offensive rebounds I think; I’m not. Listen, like I said, you can pick on that all I want. That is a number I rarely look at, offensive rebounds. Statistically, it holds up. I can tell you, you don’t offensive rebound, you stop transition, you win more games than when you get offensive rebounds. I can guarantee you that on those stats. Obviously, we would like to get some offensive rebounds, and if we’re under there we’ll take them, and we didn’t get any, but that is not why we lost," said Rivers. "Let me just say that. Offensive rebounds are the least of our problems.”

Compare the Celtics’ situation with that of the Spurs, who have been able to integrate new players gradually so that the majority of the rotation isn’t new in any given season. Be honest with yourself. If you had been a Spurs fan at almost every point in last night’s game (including the Celts’ mini-runs to claw back into the lead once or twice), would you have been worried, at any juncture, about the outcome of that game? The Spurs are doing things instinctively (at both ends of the floor) that many of the Celtics have to think about while critical half-seconds go by. That, my friends, is a key ingredient of poor chemistry.

It’s tempting to say there are so many veterans on this team that they should be able to develop chemistry quickly, like the Three Amigos did in 2007-08. Actually, the depth of this team may actually make the bonding process more difficult. What the earlier team had (from the outset) that this team does not have was a nucleus of players who happened to occupy comfortable, complementary roles virtually out of the chute. The current team has so many good players whose deeply engrained frames of reference were other systems, whose initiation with this team involved competition for jobs/roles, and who engaged in a preseason that seemed to focus on experimentation rather than a chemistry lesson. In fact, I believe some of that stuff is still going on (for example, at PF) and may even perpetuate (for example, at SG) until after Bradley’s return. It’s just one more variable in a mix that’s far more in a state of flux than was true of the championship team. And, if the roster changes (for example by bringing in someone like Gortat), for all the good things that can add to the team, there will probably be a price to pay in the form of an extended learning curve for the team.

The pure and simple fact is that straightening out this season’s Celtics team is going to involve a period (probably extended) in which many of the players will resemble an analogy I like to use: that of a baby gradually evolving into an adult. Many of the players are still hovering (metaphorically) between crawling and “table-staggering” in terms of learning this defensive system (and, secondarily, the offensive system). They have yet to go through the walking and running stages. That will take time and will necessitate patience and non-panic among fans as well as team personnel. Sometimes it may involve the team or individuals taking one step forward and two steps back (aka the drunken three-step). One function of this board’s game-on threads is to provide a golden opportunity to share little glimmers that suggest the Celtics are on the right path, even though they may still be far from the finish line. This will most likely be a process of accumulating glimmers over time, not a “big bang” cure.

There’s an old song in which one verse goes, “You've got to give a little, take a little, and let your poor heart break a little. That's the story of, that's the glory of love.” It can also be the story of the continuing improvement of a basketball team. Just substitute “a championship” for “love,” and now we’re talking.

By next April, I hope (but am not predicting because anything can happen) that, with respect to the Celtics, we’ll have vastly more to be thankful for than we do today. In the meantime, this is an excellent opportunity to be thankful for our families, our health, the many blessings bestowed upon us, and the effort that will always be a constant with this team.

Here’s to Thanksgiving in April,

Sam

Sam, Cannot pick one game. Green has been a bust at his position and is way under what Doc and Danny expected from him. He should he a sold 14-18 pts a game and he is not even close.

Yes...yes...yes.....defense......is a key and the root cause of Celtic problems...and Green is part of that problem.


Green was cited by Scal in yesterday's broadcast as not playing fundamental defense which begins with ........arms in the air so you make passing by the other team more difficult going east to west and into the paint.

I do not want to sound like I am picking on Green...but....for $9million a year I can think of 20 other players I would rather have if I was given an opportunity to swap player. I for one are not into the spoon feed mentality when it comes to motivation....sometimes a good kick in the pants is warranted...and I am donning a pair of army boots with steel tips as we speak!

112288

112288,

Sorry but I have no idea what your statement "I cannot pick one game" meant.

As for Green, I don't subscribe to the "he makes a lot of money" theory when applied to any player. Suppose Jeff were making only half the money. Would that mean he has the right to put in only half the effort? When a player is on the floor, factors other than money occupy his psyche. I believe that what should most motivate a player when he's on the floor—at least a Celtic—is pride in his ability to help the team.

However, there are factors (and I'm not talking about money) that can create disincentive. One offensive factor is the failure of the team to run plays for the player. Green's not one who creates his shot, and I don't believe many (if any) plays are called for him. One defensive factor is ineptitude of teammates. When Jeff's playing, the majority of his four combo teammates are usually new to the Celtics system. Read my other post about the disarray that characterizes the bench defense in general.

None of this is a rationalization for slacking off, but I've said many times that these guys are not toy soldiers who can just be wound up to perform like automatons. They're human beings who can get incredibly motivated when the team's on a roll and who can get disillusioned when the people around them aren't performing. It's especially easy to become disillusioned on the defensive end when one's goals were to play better defense but the unit on which one's playing is defensively dysfunctional as a group. Moreover, when evaluating individual players, many people would be well-advised to take into account contexts (such as his role and the performances of his teammates) that may be influencing the player's performance.

When Rondo gets pissed off at his mates, he has a tendency to try to take over the game himself, ostensibly to lead by example (and maybe to burn off a little angst too). That's one way to handle it if one has the ability.

Green's not a creator. He's at his offensive best when he catches and shoots or when he's led to the basket. As for defense, earlier in the season, he was racing the length of the court and exciting us with spectacular blocks. Has he lost the ability to manifest that kind of energy on defense? Unlikely. I suspect he's in somewhat of a funk and frustrated because a unit he's part of is in a funk at a time when he expected to be able to make strides in his defensive game. He can't do it alone.

I heard what Scal said, and he was right. Green's arms should have been up. Lee should have rotated much better than he did. Barbosa was much more interested in tearing to the offensive hoop than in playing really good defense. Sully gets A for effort from me, but he's certainly not at the stage (and facing matchups) that allow him to partnerl well with Jeff or anyone else. Wilcox scored a couple of points and got three defense boards, which was better than a sharp point in the eye, but neither he nor any other Celtics big man was a defensive catalyst last night. They sucked as individuals, and they sucked in combination.

I actually think this team (including Jeff) is quite motivated. But too many fans are too quick to attribute underachieving performance to lack of motivation—to say nothing of lack of appreciation of the money they're making.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Sam

Sam, What I meant with Green, they paid him $9M...that type of pay is for a higher end player......so the Celtics felt he was a high end player but he has not played to that higher level player.

I am kind of stuck on Green creating his own play. I have seen him do it especially that power dunk a few games ago that is why I am so puzzled as probably you are. Perhaps he's thinking too much instead of just letting it go and I don't give a dam attitude.

Barbosa reminds me of a Nat Robinson...he can light it up in a hurry if we need some instant offensive...but he sometimes like Nat can get out of control and start a lot of turnovers. On defense...he is a liability.

Wilcox has nice energy but at times he tries too hard and gets into early foul trouble. Rondo.....you have an astute eye.......he some times tries to do it alone to try to push the team to getting back into a game!

Sam, I mentioned in an earlier post today....maybe Doc's system is too complex on the defensive end of the game and it may take a whole season just to learn...which could hurt our chances of even making the playoffs. May be it is the defensive assistant coach. Remember most of the guys were taught by Tom T. or Franks who are great coaches........the new guys are now learning under second year coach who may not be cutting it.

I also see a problem.......are we a running team or a half court team on offense? We have some young bucks to play a running game and if you put pressure on another teams defense...they cannot get a quick jump on their offense.

Let us hope for better results tomorrow.

Happy Thanksgiving to you and Mrs. Sam!!!!!!

112288

112288,

Your question about whether the Celtics are a running team or a halfcourt team begs the answer: A little of both—running opportunistically and defaulting to the halfcourt game when you can't run. In both cases, I think they should be pushing the ball constantly because it's important to get into the half-court offense as soon as possible.

I'm not sure about pressuring the other team's defense with you offense. I usually think of it the other way around. Obviously, there are things you can do to that can hamper their defense—for example, pushing the ball, multiple picks, pick-and-rolls, spacing the floor. I'm always in favor of anything (usually a pick) that can force the other team to switch defensive assignments.

One of the announcers last night (I believe it was Heinsohn, who was off the charts about the lack of offensive rebounding) talked about Doc's "fall back quickly on defense" policy. He mentioned that the Spurs were able to contest on the offensive boards and get back in time to defend in transition, and they're not the world's greatest example of a youth movement. Although I understand Doc's rationale, perhaps I should have included something about this in my response to your "What Would Red Do?" thread.

I don't believe the defensive system is too complex to learn, but it's obviously not being approached in a timely manner. I don't believe it would be prudent to change the system, particularly because (1) the current system was adopted with an older team in mind, and (2) dumping the old system and getting them to buy into a new system could take at least as long as getting them in synch with the present system.

You may have a point about the assistant coach in charge of defense. I don't know anything about him (including his name) or how well he gets his points across.

Sam

Sam,

I remember Heinsohn talking about that very point about the Spurs to! They are an aging team but are able to do what they do....so it's not like the Celtics cannot do the same.

Puzzling to say the least.

I believe the defensive coach is Mike Longabardi .


PHILADELPHIA — The Boston Celtics, having lost their lead assistant for the second year in a row, have filled the void from within.

Mike Longabardi, who has been with the Celtics since the 2007-2008 season, has been promoted to bench assistant coach.

The previous two lead assistants, Lawrence Frank and Tom Thibodeau (who are now coaching Detroit and Chicago, respectively), were both known for their defensive coaching prowess. Longabardi's strength is also on the defensive end of the floor, but it's unclear if he'll be the C's lead assistant.

"I'm looking forward to adding Mike to our bench," Celtics coach Doc Rivers said. "He has been in the fold the last four years and he's more than ready for the next step."

Prior to coming to Boston, Longabardi was with the Houston Rockets for four years. He worked as an assistant coach/video coordinator for two years, the video coordinator for one season and an assistant video coordinator for a year.

His NBA experience came after spending a number of years as a college basketball assistant at Pfeiffer University, Adelphi University, Lafayette College and Towson University.

The Brooklyn, NY native graduated from Frostburg State University with a degree in health and physical education.

112288