Next Step in the Re-build: Individual Offensive Consistency

As I have written, the Cs re-build is moving at a faster pace than I originally thought. The team culture has changed since Rondo left for Dallas.
The team has been fun to watch and follow. Many players (come on, James Young) are much improved. The coaching staff has improved greatly, and the
team is in contention for a playoff spot a year sooner than I figured.

What is the next step?

In my opinion, it is adding some scoring consistency to the roster either by player improvement or player acquisition (or both). Although it has been nice to
see individual players this season come through with game winning efforts in points produced, it has also been somewhat frustrating to see such un-even
individual performances. It is nice to see, as an example Olynyk, scoring 23 points on a given night because it shows some of his potential, it is also difficult to
watch him score three or four in his next game. I only used Olynyk as an example and do not blame him for anything other than being one of many guys
who have shown such scoring spikes and very deep valleys this season.

I think that such offensive up and down performance has lead to several/some/many losses this season. Observing this week alone, with three of the four games already played,
the Detroit game on Sunday and last night's game against Miami come immediately to mind. With losing both of those games the Cs must now beat the Knicks on Friday
to just break even in a week that could have certainly been a 4-0 (at least 3-1) week which would have very much solidified a play off spot.

I also understand that much of the roster is composed of young players (Sullenger, Olynyk, Young, Zeller, Bradley, Jerebko, Smart, Turner, etc, etc) with only Wallace,
and Bass (OK, maybe Datome) considered as the only true "vets" on the roster and inconsistency is a big part of being a young guy. This is why I mentioned that this skill
can be "developed" as well as acquired.

This team just does not seem to have enough consistent individual scoring yet, and such scoring goes a long way to stabilizing the beginnings of games. If you can get
say 9 points in the first half from two starters, 7 points from two other starters, 4 points from the other starter on a nightly basis you have 36 points that if the
bench guys can add 12 you are "in" the ball game at the half and likely have not had to bust out a first half 14-1 rally to at least be close. I believe that falling behind by
big numbers in the first half have a large mental drain on any team. Sometimes, a team overcomes a large first half deficit but often do not.

The end-of-the-game rallies are fun to watch this year over last year, but if they could be used more often to pull away and win a game they would be much better.
To accomplish this, however, the Cs need to be more consistent in the first 24 to 36 minutes of any/every game.

A starting player with a 14 point per game average likely helps his team more early in the game if he has the following end-of-game type stats for five games: 14, 12, 11, 14
and 15 than does the guy who scores as follows for the same five game span: 2, 24, 5, 16 and 7. I understand what an "average" is and both scenarios come to a 14 point
average if my math is at least decent, but when a couple of guys are up and down (as many Cs have been this year) in the same game the early part of the game is greatly
changed in my eyes.

Of course, there are going to be "bad" scoring nights that can stem from a variety of reasons such as injury, foul trouble, how the defense is playing you, etc.

Also, there are going to be other thoughts as to what is needed next (center-hard to dispute this one, better shooting wing, etc) in the rebuild as well.

Your thoughts?

Clyde,

Assuming that Boston will continue to build toward the distributed/motion offense -- the Spurs/Golden State/Atlanta/Russell Celtics model -- the goal is to have 8-10 guys who can score double-figures on a regular basis. With that model, individual players may have up and down scoring, but you can depend on team consistency achieved through 5-6 guys scoring in double figures every night.

The Spurs are the "purest" example of that. They have 10 guys who average seven points or more this season, with Kawhi Leonard as the top scorer at 16.0. The Hawks are a bit more concentrated with scoring -- the five starters average between 12-17 points and Dennis Schroder averages 9.7, but there's a drop-off after that. The Warriors are top-heavy with Curry and Thompson averaging 45 points combined, but they go eight-deep with guys who average at least seven points per game plus two more who average six.

Boston, as currently constructed, is sort of a blend of all three. They have nine guys on the current roster (including Sullinger) who have averaged seven points or more this season, plus Jerebko, who has averaged 6.9 with the Celtics, so that looks very Spurs-like, but considering all the flux in the roster this season, it's hard to tell if that's a reflection of their offensive performance after the trades, especially since Sullinger's scoring had to move elsewhere.

Thomas is averaging almost 20 points per game, which is Warriors-like in that if you have a guy that scores that much, you begin to depend on that particular guy's scoring every game, or at least getting 12-15 from him as long as your other distributed scorers pick up the slack and that 20-point scorer allows the other scorers to pick up the slack. In the Warriors' case, Curry and Thompson have been dependable scorers, and on the recent occasions when opponents have doubled Curry (it's the latest strategy teams have been using), he's been a willing passer, and the other players are converting the resulting open opportunities, which is how a 20-point scorer can still be effective for the offense without scoring 20 points. From the little I've seen, Thomas doesn't have that type of alternative effectiveness when he's having an off night or the opponent doubles him - instead of drawing the defensive pressure to himself and then kicking to let the ball find an open teammate, my impression is that he tends to keep the ball too long and defaults too often to attempting to make a great play despite the defense (it would be interesting to see if others who have seen him play more than I have agree with that assessment).

The way I see it, it's really a multi-faceted problem -- opponents can hurt the Celtics' production because a) Boston is beginning to rely on Thomas a little too much; b) when opponents concentrate defensive pressure on Thomas, he isn't as effective as he should be at giving the ball up so that it can find an open teammate; and c) the other Celtics aren't quite as good as they should be at converting when they get opportunities, thereby maintaining offensive production and reducing the incentive to pressure Thomas.

I actually think the Celtics would benefit by having Thomas score less, essentially making him one of a fleet of guys who can score rather than the number one guy who scores. Thomas can obviously score, but he's not an elite scorer in the category that Curry is or Thompson is developing into. There's no crime in that -- it's a short list of players who are truly elite scorers -- but he hurts the team if he tries to be an elite scorer instead of allowing the motion offense to find the player with the best opportunity to score.

Given the type of offense that Stevens is building, I think improvement will be incremental. What they need are upgrades, not a big, splashy signing of a go-to guy. I'll use the Golden State example, because I'm most familiar with them. A couple of years ago, three of their top five scorers were David Lee (18.5), Jarrett Jack (12.9), and Carl Landry (10.8). Jack and Landry are gone, and Lee has games when he doesn't even play now, yet they are a significantly improved team without having big free agent signings or trades. The improvements have come in two ways:

• Non-spectacular free agent signings. The biggest name they've brought in is Andre Iguodala, but he's not a big scorer. They also signed Shaun Livingston and Leandro Barbosa. Combined, their impact offensively has been significant because they add to that fleet of players who can score (they average 21 points between the three of them). Livingston, though he scores less, is a much better fit than Jack because he's a better facilitator, doesn't need to dominate the ball like Jack, and fits in well as one of their long, interchangeable defenders. Iguodala and Barbosa push the ball and score in transition (they lead the league in transition points at 21 per game, seven more than two years ago) and are also part of their long, interchangeable defender group.

• Improvement in their young draftees. Draymond Green is spectacularly better than he was two years ago, making Lee a luxury who can sit on the bench. Harrison Barnes is much improved. Klay Thompson has gotten steadily better. You can even put Curry in this group, I suppose.

Unless one of the young Celtics develops into a Curry or Thompson, the Spurs are the model to shoot for, meaning a group of guys who can score without a dominant scorer. (You could also call it a Russell-era Celtics model, although Sam Jones had some elite scoring seasons.) And they can get there by developing guys they draft and acquiring guys like Crowder and Jerebko who aren't spectacular additions but can contribute regularly (hopefully at both ends of the court). I see the path as incremental upgrades, not a push to sign Kevin Love or some other big-name guy. Some guys will be gone, some guys will improve, new faces will come in. Hopefully, Thomas can find a more efficient identity in the offense. The goal is to have that fleet of guys who, as a group, you can depend on to take advantage of what the motion offense provides.

I agree very much with the comments made.

I think the Celtics should focus on acquiring better shooters.  I also think that the free flowing motion offense should evolve over time and will include more sophisticated options that seek to exploit matchup opportunities.

The motion offense as currently executed still provides far too many open 3 point looks for the wrong player.  There are several players on this team that should limit their three point shot attempts because it is a wasted possession.  

dboss

I've always felt that individual abilities should be cultivate constantly by individual players.  Ideally, they'll cultivate those skills that are most in keeping with team needs.  From my point of view, therefore, it is vital that the team develop as completely as possible as soon as possible, thus acting as an indicator of the abilities or roles to which each player should aspire.

Of course, team needs will change along with the roster.  But, at any given point in time, I believe players should focus on team needs as the context within which they concentrate on improving themselves.  Which is one reason why it's important that the team develop a strong identity so that its most pressing needs are obvious.

Sam

The addition of Thomas has been big for this years team to move into the playoff argument.

without looking I would think we have been at least a .500 team since he got here.

The great thing about adding a player like Thomas is it allows the other players to drop back (so to speak) in the player tier. Before thomas Sully  or Bradley was oour top scorer for instance, now they drop back a slot and it makes the team more competitive over all.

This is why I say the addition of just ONE player (of Thomas' caliber or better) will move this team into the top 4 in the east next season. preferibly that player will be a big man of some type.

Gasol
Jordan
Aldridge

all unlikely, but would do the trick

N. Noel
Love
Robin Lopez

possibility but only outsides ones, IMO.

Monroe
Asik
Cauley-Stein

More likely additions, that would move the team forward.

kdp59

It is difficult to predict what this team will look like next season let along where they will be in the standings. There are other teams in the east so I do not think it is possible to assume where Boston will be in the standings even if they add one player that has a Thomas like Impact (but in other areas such as rebounding and rim protection)

We do not know who will be on the team.

I think a keeper list would be an interesting topic for debate.

yep most teams WILL try to improve also for sure dboss.

But I just looked it up and we are 11-9 since Feb 20th trade deadline.

that's a .550 winning %.

good enough for 5th just behind Washington  (.556) now for a full season.

so I am fully confident that IF we can add one more player who can at least hold his own as a NBA center next season, we WILL be in the battle for a top 4 playoff spot in the East.


OK I just checked the records since Feb20th , here are the standing in the East:
Clev- 14-4 (.777)
Atl- 11-6 (.647)
Mia- 11-8 (.579)
Ind- 10.8 (.555)
Bos- 11-9 (.550)
Chic- 10-9 (.526)
Bkn- 9-9 (.500)
Char- 8-10 (.444)
Wash- 7-11 (.388)
Det- 6-11 (.353)
Tor- 6-13 (.315)
Mil- 6-13 (.315)
Phil- 6-13 (.315)
Orl- 5-12 (.294)
NY- 4-15 (.210)


so the team as it stands right now is the fifth best in the East today.

Since recent trends are usually more important than season-long records in determine the current ranking of teams, fifth place is pretty good.  And an argument could be made that the Celtics are in the conversation for either the third or fourth spot.

If they can keep up that .550 pace, it'll be a nice piece of momentum to take into the summer—and also an indicator to free agents that this is a team on the move.

Sam