Deep Thoughts: 3s Weren't The Only Issue

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4715430/deep-thoughts-threes-werent-only-issue




Deep thoughts: Threes weren't only issue
November, 2, 2014
NOV 2 12:01 AM ET
By Chris Forsberg | ESPNBoston.com




If the Boston Celtics' season-opening win Wednesday led to rampant optimism, Saturday's 104-90 loss to the Houston Rockets probably evened things out. Facing a legitimate Western Conference contender, the Celtics let the game get away from them in the first quarter and never responded enough to quite make things interesting again.

The top storyline will be Boston's abysmal 3-point shooting, and for good reason. The Celtics missed their first 21 3-point attempts and were flirting with an NBA record for consecutive misses before Jeff Green produced the team's only triple with 4:10 to play. Boston finished a cringeworthy 1-for-25 shooting (4 percent) beyond the arc.




ESPN Stats and Info: Celtics 3-point shooting  


Celtics coach Brad Stevens noted after the loss, "if we throw in five 3s instead of one, it's a totally different game." He's not wrong. But maybe the more concerning aspect of Boston's 3-point woes was simply how reliant the team became on the shot early on, particularly as Houston started to take a lead.

The Celtics were down just six early in the first quarter but missed 3-pointers on three consecutive possessions. Houston's lead quickly jumped to 10, and instead of attacking the basket to try to make something happen, Boston continued to fire away from deep. They missed three more triples in a two-minute span later in the frame, and the Rockets' lead soon ballooned to 18 (which seemed insurmountable the way Boston was shooting).

We've often referenced how Stevens wants his Celtics to respond better to adversity. That's not just a desire to play better in the fourth quarter of close games. It's situations such as Saturday, in which Boston couldn't stop the bleeding early and never gave itself a true chance to compete again. (The Celtics did get within 11 in the third quarter, but it took little more than a minute for Houston to push its lead back to 18).

Boston's inability to consistently get to the free-throw line remains troubling. Of course, when your 3-pointers aren't falling, it makes that task even more difficult. But the Rockets shot 24 first-half free throws Saturday; Boston attempted three. It took 10 and a half minutes before Boston generated its first free throw attempt of the game, and the Celtics later endured a stretch of 17 minutes without a free throw attempt, including the entire second quarter and the first 4:46 of the third frame. Houston shot 40 free throws overall; Boston shot 18.

The Celtics were not tough with the ball and often let Houston dictate their shots.

Stevens admitted after the game, "I don’t think we got the rim enough on the drive or backcut. ... We need to finish better, and we need to recognize the opportunity to drive and cut more. And we will."

There was plenty to lament on this night. Kelly Olynyk encountered early foul trouble and never got going, Green needed 19 shots for a team-high 17 points and Boston's starters were largely ineffective overall, though Jared Sullinger had his moments, particularly in the third quarter.

For Boston, it has to be disappointing to play so poorly when there should have been ample motivation to build off Wednesday's performance. The Celtics were 0-15 on the road against the Western Conference the past season, and that included getting their doors blown off in Houston. Boston didn't look like a team that had made much progress.

But the Celtics can't linger on the loss. Ultimately, it goes back to what Stevens stressed before the start of the season: The Celtics simply can't get too high or too low this month. Boston has a very challenging schedule that will make it difficult for a young squad to play with consistency. There are going to be peaks and valleys on this roller coaster.

No matter how extreme the highs or lows, Boston has to do a better job of staying level.




bob
MY NOTE:  Brad is echoing my conclusion on the post-game thread.  If we hit 5 3s instead of 1, it's a different game.  As far as our reliance on the 3, we took 98 fgas total and only 25 3pt fgas.  That's not an overwhelming % of 3s.  I don't think our 3s came out of the flow of the offense like they should (what offensive flow?) but there wasn't a heavy reliability on 3s, not as much as we've seen.  As far as the "other issues", how about 40ftas by Houston, with a guard taking 14 of them?  We're supposed to have superior, even elite, perimeter defenders and a guard gets to the line all those times?    I think our lack of kick outs on drives played to their interior defense's strength, but if you're not hitting your jumpshots then who are you kicking to that's going to make the shot?



.

While I've never ever liked the three point shot, it obviously plays a large role in Brad's plans.  And they seem to have players who, in the right circumstances, can hit the three ball with a reasonable degree of regularity.  But, if the three is to be prominently featured in Boston's attack, there are certain prerequisites that must be met.

First and foremost, there will be nights like last one in which the threes just aren't falling.  So the first requirement is that the Celtics must have a fallback position that dependably keeps them in games when the arc becomes their enemy.

More specifically, they need to be able to slash to the hoop on demand. 

In fact, taking it to the hoop shouldn't really be a fallback position.  It should be absolutely mandatory from the very start of every game because requirement number two is that they need to establish the three ball game the same way a football team sets up its passing game by establishing a strong running game.

In other words, developing a truly effective three-point strategy doesn't just mean firing away from the arc with impunity.  That simply plays into the very defensive strategy other teams are now routinely using to stymie the Celtics' outside game—namely extending the defenses.  The Rockets gave a perfect demonstration of how to flip the Celtics' three point game from a possible Celtics advantage to a definite Rockets advantage.  It could be argued that success of the three pointer benefits more from assists than any other type of shot.  The extra pass makes all the difference in the world.

Thirdly, effectively moving the ball from side to side was arguably the number one reason for the Celtics' three point success against New Jersey.  They didn't just take three pointers.  In many cases, they took open three pointers.  The problem is that, when their three point attempts are contested (which was the case last night), their shooting percentage plummets.  So here's a lesson guys (including Brad).  If your three point game sucks, either find a way to get more open three pointers or find a strategy (such as slashing) that will force the defense to drop off the perimeter and take some of the pressure off your three point attempts. 

Fourth, last night the Celtics basically surrendered to the Rockets' perimeter defense by dismally failing in attempts to space the floor well.  Part of the problem seems to be not knowing where their teammates are going to be in their offensive sets.  Positioning patterns either have not been established or (more likely) they have not been learned.  Hopefully, this problem will be reduced over time.

Fifth, the Celtics have an unfortunate tendency, when confronted with a tough defense, to do more of what got them into trouble (such as more driving into traffic, shooting more fruitless threes, etc.) rather than diagnosing the problems so as to give the system a chance to work.  I have to keep remembering that they've done a pretty good job of acclimating to Brad's systems within a relatively short time, so they should be cut some slack in terms of correcting problems while also deeply involved in still learning new things.

My sixth and last note on three pointers (and this is probably my main gripe about them) is that I believe a strong reliance on them can result in a mentality that results in lazy basketball.  "Lazy" may not be the right word because I actually think the Celtics put out a lot of effort last night.  But I believe the best offenses are aggressive offenses, and the back-of-the-mind feeling that a long heave is always available if necessary reduces the motivation to be constantly aggressive.

Not directly related to the three pointer is the fact that, in both games to date, the Celtics have given up loads of points.  The defense has just not jelled; and, in particular, it's still susceptible to penetration—which helps to establishes opponents' outside game (as mentioned above).  I know there's a tendency to blame certain individuals; but, aside from the guard positions, these players simply do not have the defensive expertise to attempt the kinds of defense where individual merits or demerits should be an issue.  The players at the 3, 4 and 5 positions will survive on defense only by playing serious help —and, even if they do so, they'll need as much assistance as possible from their perimeter defenders in deterring penetration.

As I've stated many times, my focus this season will be on development rather than on wins and losses.  In the early going, I'm seeing individual offensive potential from a number of players, with much better collaboration needed to capitalize on the individual potential.  For example, Avery Bradley seems lost on offense to a considerable degree.  He's not a shot creator, and he's not a good ballhandler, so he needs to spend less time driving into traffic and more time being set up by the floor general of the moment.

On defense, I'm feeling increasingly negative about Kelly Olynyk at the center position.  So far, his most consistent defensive move is the foul.  And, frankly, the same is true of Sully at power forward.  I'd like to see more of Zeller than Olynyk at center, and I know this would present a minutes problem for Brad with Olynyk, Sully and Bass trying to divide the power forward minutes.  But my job is to identify the problems.  I'll leave the solutions to Danny.

Go Celtics!

Sam