The Three Strikes....and They're Out or The Lingering Specter of Rajon Rondo

It makes no difference if you agree or not with any group of writers or experts.  

The general consensus was that the Celtics would see around the same win total as last year WITH Jeff Green and Rajon Rondo - if you were to subtract them from the equation....then add in a few months without Sully and KO - that total would have to decrease even further.  So the fact that the Celtics are on pace to exceed (by a significant amount) their win total from last year - yes, they are exceeding expectations.

The Celtics are on the verge of qualifying for the playoffs.  There is no way anyone (yourself included) predicted they would be a playoff team - especially without Rajon and Jeff Green.  So that again means, yes  they are exceeding expectations.

Your claim shooting 3 pointers is a "Lazy" strategy shows just how out of touch you are with the prevailing offensive strategies in the NBA.  If you came out and said you dont like the 3 point shot - that would be fine, but trying to support your case by calling it lazy is just ridiculous - particularly when many of the 3 point shots being taken in the NBA circa 2015 are IN TRANSITION.....so on a fast break, which is the opposite of being lazy.  

Is Golden State a lazy team?  Is Atlanta a lazy team? How about the Spurs?

The Celtics are 11th in the NBA in scoring.  Of the 10 teams who score more per game than they do, 9 of them shoot more 3 point field goals than the Celtics do.  

3 pointers are a big part of the modern game of basketball.  Sorry you are not on board, but every successful team in the NBA is.

There's a difference between a lazy team and a team that develops a lazy habit.  A mediocre three-point shooting team may hustle its butt off; but, if they default to three point shots when things get hairy, I consider that to be a lazy default.

That has nothing to do with whether the three-pointer is a big part of the modern game of basketball.  Of course it is.  That doesn't mean one has to like it.

Mrkleen, I think you might have meant that opinions of the three point shot are subjective, not objective as you stated.  Actually, it's a combination of subjectivity (for example, I don't like the three-pointer because I think it dampens the basic beauty and pace of the game in favor of a runaway entertainment orientation) and objectivity (for example, the Celtics rank 24th in three-point accuracy).  There's nothing wrong with exercising either subjectivity or objectivity.

Sam

Sam

Maybe I am wrong - but I was under the impression that Objective was related to the "observation of measurable facts" - that facts in this case are that experts felt the team would be the same or worse than they were last season. So if I can show multiple examples where experts said the Celtics would win less games than they have already won, objectively speaking the Celtics are exceeding expectations. In the case, I used the word I wanted to use.

In the next line - you are correct. When talking about opinions, I should have used subjective.

As for the rest about 3 point shooting - this is down to personal preference and style. Someone would need to call out nearly every coach in the NBA to criticize his offensive play calling - since nearly every team in the league uses the 3 pointer as a part of their overall strategy.

The Celtics average 88 shots per game (the most in the NBA) and of those 24 are 3 pointers. I dont see that as representing any kind of a default.

Mrkleen,

I'm aware of the stats.  By "default" I'm not alluding to the sheer number of three-pointers the Celtics take or the percentage of their shots that are three-point attempts.

I'm referring solely and specifically to their penchant for defaulting (or resorting) to three-pointers on many occasiona when they fall behind.  You know, all those times when Tommy and we on the Game-on Thread are yelling, "Take it to the hoop."  Call it poor discipline or poor execution or whatever, but I see it as a lazy alternative to working hard to mount a comeback.

Ironically, at just the time when they might have their best excuse for not taking it to the hoop (the absence of Sully), the arrivals of Thomas and Crowder have injected more life in their penetration game to the extent that the Celtics don't seem to be defaulting so exclusively to outside shots.  My perception is that they're mixing up their offense more than previously, which makes their offense less predictable and, therefore, more difficult to defend against.

Sam