Re: OFFICIAL SAM'S CELTICS FORUM 2013-14 GLIMMER THREAD

[sinus007]

Hi,
Speaking about JC, I was impressed by his performance in the second half of the 4th quarter. Using maritime analogy, when the Celtics boat was being pounded by waves and was about to capsized he took the helm, calmed everyone down and guided it to the port unharmed. All that with his Mr. H-J style.

AK

[cowens/oldschool]

Sully showing some very strong scoring ability that he can build on, he can create his own shot against most PF's from alot of different spots on the floor.

[k_j_88]

Only 14 TOs against Utah, lowest of the season.



KJ

[Sam]

Saturday, November 9, 2013 vs. Heat at Miami

Glimmer: continuation of volume offense and good ball protection

Glimmer: continued up-tempo pace and more precision halfcourt play

Glimmer: continued emphasis on assisted field goals = teamwork and trusting teammates

[Sam]

This will be a much more exhaustive post than is appropriate for the more selective Glimmer Thread.  However, the Glimmer Thread has been so bereft of comments this season that I’m hoping perhaps this submission will jump start further contributions.

What a difference a month makes!  I’ve been in South Carolina and Florida during most of November and saw no Celtics games during that time.  However, I wasn’t completely out of the loop, thanks to the Game-on Thread online game trackers.  (You can use little tricks to learn a load from the game-tracker accounts—for instance, getting an idea of the game pace by studying how long it takes both teams to attempt a field goal after an opponent’s basket.)

Anyway, I left on November 6, with the Celtics having lost their first four games and looking disorganized and just plain bad enough to stimulate more board conversation about tanking than on constructive analysis of the games.  The outlook for the season was suddenly lower than a worm’s toenails.

I have now seen two games since my return, and—while they’re hardly on a championship course—the improvement of the Celtics has been palpable to reassure me that this bunch will not threaten my Celtic Pride.

TURNOVERS

Then: Perhaps the most frustrating symptom in the early season—the ungift that kept ungiving—involved turnovers.  I believe there are three basic types of turnovers:

• Turnovers forced by the opponent (usually known as steals)
• Offensive fouls (which count as turnovers)
• Turnovers generated by sloppy decision-making and/or execution

The first two types are subject to external factors such as opponents’ effort level, game pace, etc.  It’s the self-inflicted turnovers that a team can most readily address.  And they’re not always bad.  If a player tries something creative that, if it works, could become a staple of the offense, a resulting turnover could often be considered constructive.  If a player drives recklessly into traffic and loses the ball, it’s usually a bad turnover.

Most of the Celtics turnovers I saw in the first four games were what I considered self-destructive with no redeeming offset.  In fact, it seemed to me that they didn’t even have enough group coordination to try anything innovative.

Now: In recent games, I’ve seen the number of turnovers decrease to a reasonably workable level—with only a few hiccups along the way.  In last night’s game, the Celtics had 16 turnovers to the Knicks’ 14.  But the number didn’t bother me because I considered the proportion of “constructive” turnovers to “bad” turnovers to be very healthy.

For example, I saw several inside passes that didn’t work out but which I applauded because they were pushing the envelope in a positive direction.  I also saw Avery Bradley complete a beautiful lead pass to someone (Sully? Green?) for an easy basket—a move I would have sworn wasn’t remotely within Avery’s capability.  (I’ve accused him repeatedly as only having the ability and/or instinct to pass laterally.)

I also saw Crawford loop two first half 45-50 foot passes to Green and (I think it was) Bass for bunnies.  A month ago, either Jordan wouldn’t have even tried such an audacious pass or would have failed at it.  

AGGRESSIVENESS

Then: The kindest but most accurate word to describe the Celtics I saw during what seemed the eternity of the first four games would be “tentative.”  They seldom tried to innovate.  They thought rather than acting instinctively which, in turn, awkwardly messed up any rhythm they might otherwise have mustered in either their ball-handling or their shooting.

Now: They’re now acting and reacting much more quickly and decisively.  Why?  Because they’re much more secure about being ensconced in individual roles that allow each guy to focus on what he does best in complementing teammates’ strongest abilities, thereby resulting in bring a very solid collection of attributes to every game.

One of the key examples of bringing out the best in individuals involves was covered in my last night’s comments on hands.  On offense, guys like Sully, Bass, Green and Humphries in particular showed strong, sure, determined hands in action under both hoops.  And the Celtics as a group constantly had hands deflecting balls in the Knicks’ passing lanes which, more than any other single factor dampened the Knicks’ three-point potential.  On one play, I believe it was Lee in Rush Limbaugh territory (sometimes known as the Right Wing) who climbed a ladder to snag a long pass that was headed for the third row.

Another example of how aggressiveness hones individual contributions involves 50/50 balls.  The ability of the Celts to anticipate better and react quicker than the Nets in the fight for loose balls was almost a microcosm of every Celtics advantage yesterday.  They were a step ahead throughout the game, whereas they’d typically have been a step behind during the first four games.

I’ve always felt that the best path to winning an NBA game included getting off to a great start.  But, unfortunately, opponents are as aware of that objective as are the Celtics.  So actually doing it involves, perhaps above all else, jump (no pun intended) starting the first period in a super-aggressive mode, setting the opponent back on his heels from the outset, and ideally making him play catchup throughout the game.  The Celtics right now might be one of the best teams in the league in terms of carving out a significant early lead.  It appears that they understand the value of early super-aggressiveness.  They’ve been up and down in terms of maintaining that early advantage throughout the game.  But here’s hoping last night’s slaughter, contrasted with some more negative experiences of the recent past, gave them a real taste for what is gained by an early run and what can be lost by not perpetuating that momentum throughout the game.

It’s imperative that Jeff Green, Jared Sullinger, Brandon Bass, Avery Bradley and Jordan Crawford be singled out in a discussion on Celtics aggressiveness.  And Gerald Wallace and Courtney Lee are legitimate parts of that conversation too Each of them has reached way back in his personal arsenal to prove that aggressive basketball is winning basketball.  And, while still working on that aggressiveness, this team has served notice on the rest of the league that the Boston Celtics had better not be taken as lightly as the Idiot Tankards do.

TEAMWORK

Then: Assists alone are only one indicator of teamwork.  It’s possible for a team to assist on 65% of its made field goals mainly because they had so few field goals due largely to an absence of teamwork.  Early in this season, the Celtics tended to default to iso ball—especially in the clutch—rather than to depend on teamwork.

Now: This is now a team that obviously has become quite familiar with one another and trusts one another.  That is a huge improvement in a relatively short time.  There are two types of teamwork: physical and mental. They’re executing at a high level, with very good timing and rhythm.  And they have vaulted well beyond a lot of other teams in terms of what I call “collective instinct.”

One reason the Russell Celtics could prosper with only seven plays, which every player in the league could recite, was the number of options available on each play.  And what made the whole thing work was that they didn’t need voice signals, hand signals, or even  the raising of an eyebrow to know instinctively (based on the flow of the possession) which option they’d use.

I’m not comparing this team with the Russell Celtics.  (I’d never compare any team with the Russell Celtics.)  But I am noting an increasing amount of “collective instinct” driving their on-court actions.  And it’s not just a matter of telepathy (which often seemed to be the case during The Tyranny).  Brad noted yesterday how much more they’re verbally communicating with one another both on and off the floor.  He also observed how that kind of communicating helps them to come from a common perspective in what they do out there.

In the same vein as collective instinct, I should probably make mention of collective confidence as well.  The team now only plays together.  It cheers together.  These guys appreciate and like one another, and they are developing a group conscience that thrives shared confidence.

COMFORT LEVEL

Then: The Celts looked very uncomfortable with each other early in the season.  That’s one reason why Wallace, who is good at using his experience to take things into his own hands, was their most valuable player early-on.  People didn’t know their roles, which didn’t particularly hamper Wallace because he can do a little of everything.  They had no synergy with one another.  It was like organized grabass out there.

Now: We need only to look at Exhibit C (for Craford) to gain an appreciation of how a role-driven team can exceed expectations.  Even though he wasn’t particularly experienced at the PG position, once he was established in that role, Jordan made it his business to identify a balanced mix of his skills would utilize his use of those skills most effectively.  He didn’t overcompensate in the direction of ball distribution while forsaking his strongest skill (shooting, including what I like to call his “Mars Attack.”)  Nor was he so totally defined by his shooting skill that he couldn’t integrate the more traditional PG functions into his game.

I'm sure others could add to this list factors that have contributed to results such as improved shooting, improved defense, improved won/lost record, etc.  One place to start would pinpoint Brad Stevens' contributions.

SHOOTING

Then: Shooting would be one of the positive results I mentioned above.  Rather than positive results such as offense, defense, and won/lost record, I've tried to focus on some factors that underlie the positive results.  But I’m going to finish with just one of the numerous “bottom lines” of these contributing factors—shooting.  We’re all familiar with the fact that, although the Celtics’ defense was marginal at best in the early going the offense was little short of abysmal.

Now:

Well, that has changed dramatically.  The defense has improved (as witness last night’s game) and currently ranks fifth in keeping opponents’ scoring low; but the offense has mushroomed to almost staggering levels from once being around the bottom of the league to now being at #22 and counting.

They’re shooting a healthy average of 81 field goal attempts a game. Their current starting five is averaging roughly 46.4% in field goal shooting (“roughly” because I simply divided the sum of their individual percentages by 5 rather than weighting the results by number of minutes played) and 43.5% from behind the arc.  The next four players in terms of minutes played have averaged 48.5% overall and 33.1% from behind the arc..  And those figures include the dog days at the beginning of the season.  Their shooting has obviously improved lately; and last night’s game produced Celtics’ shooting percentages of 54.2% overall and 56.1% from three point land.  (Only a fool would expect percentages like that every night, but they’re directionally encouraging.)

And aggressiveness, teamwork, comfort levels, and turnover control have all been instrumental in influencing field goal percentages and other positive results at both ends of the floor.

The fact that so much improvement occurred during what I call my “Braille Celtics Month” may mean I’ve just been a jinx during other periods.  In fact, I’m almost (but not quite) ready to shoulder all the blame for what didn’t happen between 1987 and 2008.  But enough self-flagellation.  Is there anyone who doesn’t consider this team both lovable and entertaining?  Speaking for myself, I intend to enjoy the ride and let the wins and losses take care of themselves.

In the meantime, Go Celtics!

Sam

[k_j_88]

Glimmer: Boston is learning how to gain a large lead and hold it for a win.



KJ

[Sponsored content]