CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: KGs Knee on November 03, 2012, 01:20:33 AM
-
Lakers 0-3 for 1st time in 30+ years.
Celtics have, BY FAR, the worst defense of the KG era.
-
Lack of cohesion. The talent is there for both teams.
Both franchises will come together at some point soon...it just takes time.
Remember that LBJ, Wade and Bosh were 9-8 through their first 17 games during their first year together, and they ended up finishing 58-24.
Just need some real time to get things together.
-
Lack of cohesion. The talent is there for both teams.
Both franchises will come together at some point soon...it just takes time.
Remember that LBJ, Wade and Bosh were 9-8 through their first 17 games during their first year together, and they ended up finishing 58-24.
Just need some real time to get things together.
TP very good point you make. People are pushing panic buttons. Yes the defence has been ordinary by our standards. Dont forget probs got the most new personal in years anywau
-
Doc has to manage minutes for 10-11 players. I don't think he's ever done that before. On top of that half of them are new.
I don't like small ball but I think Doc is envisioning something different that might come to be as we continue into this season.
-
Lack of cohesion. The talent is there for both teams.
Both franchises will come together at some point soon...it just takes time.
Remember that LBJ, Wade and Bosh were 9-8 through their first 17 games during their first year together, and they ended up finishing 58-24.
Just need some real time to get things together.
+1
-
We weren't THAT great on paper to begin with. The Lakers struggling is inexcusable, though. They are loaded with big time talent.
-
We are much deeper but we only have 4 returning players.
It's going to take some time. Even the Lakers have Kobe, Pau and Artest as the only returning players.
You can't go up against teams like Miami who are elite AND have had that cohesion for 2 years now- even the Bucks who had the same roster at the end of last season- and expect to steamroll anyone with such an unfamiliar roster.
Our depth is our strength but it's going to take time to work the best combinations on offense and defense.
Kevin Garnett is the defensive general of this team.
We will be fine.
I just hope we can get a trade to make us a real threat to the Heat in a 7 game series.
-
I think Doc is still in experimentation mode.
From what I have seen Barbosa and Rondo ought to be our backcourt. We have zero inside scoring for the most part. We do get opportunity buckets off boards but no go to guy in the post. Both MIA and the BUCKs were vulnerable in the post and we are a jump shooting team.
I am not worried, I am a Celtic fan win or lose though.
-
both
and im not buying the not enough time to gel...last i checked the first year of the kg era it was a completely different team and we started something like 29-3...fail excuse
-
Well...the Lakers are still scary....KObe still can drop 40 points !!!!! old as he is amazing...!!!
AS long as Kobe is alive and breathing they are threat to win it all.
I think more than ever it show how THIN the Lakers are depth wise.
If they suck with Kobe scoring 40 , think how bad they would be IF KOBE or Pau Gasol were out for months. They would miss the playoffs .
They miss Fisher and Odem alot. Also Howard is aonly a few points /rebounds better than What Bynum was providing....when he was healthy.
Kobe is super human or on massive steriods.
-
both
and im not buying the not enough time to gel...last i checked the first year of the kg era it was a completely different team and we started something like 29-3...fail excuse
Yup...KG is looking SLOW to me. Maybe he'll get into playing shape at some point.
They still can't defend the pick n roll worth a darn.
-
Both teams are fine. Legitimate title contenders. Top two teams within their conferences.
They've both just started slowly.
-
Both team are old and not contenders in my opinion. LAL lost the biggest Center, Bynum who is better in general if we compare Vs Howard. Boston has different issues. Excluding Barbosa, other new players, are not showing at all their potencial. I thing DA has to move quickly and get rid of Terry, Green and Lee.
p.s. Did you see Hollins yerterday?
-
Lack of cohesion. The talent is there for both teams.
Both franchises will come together at some point soon...it just takes time.
Remember that LBJ, Wade and Bosh were 9-8 through their first 17 games during their first year together, and they ended up finishing 58-24.
Just need some real time to get things together.
I was going to say the exact same thing, so TP to you for getting there first. No need to push the panic button yet.
-
We started pretty bad last year, too. We're just trying to keep everyone off balance after the lightning fast starts from 08-10.
-
Definite lack of cohesion. Not a question. It'll take time, same thing happened last year. Lack of chemistry and lack of playing our big men. Our depth is going to be an issue me thinks.
-
I have concern, absolutely. Our starting line-up has 4 of 5 returning and the new guy (Lee) is the least important of the 5. How hard should it be to cohere? Whereas the Lakers have 2 new starters who need to be key guys.
My concern is with Pierce and Garnett. So far, they both look old. We go nowhere without Pierce and Garnett (and especially Garnett) playing well (on par with last year). I don't care how many Jeff Greens, Jason Terry's or Darko's you add.
I don't know if this is the year of the big drop off for them (I actually don't think it is) but when it comes, it will come fast and it won't be pretty.
Pierce seems to be able to fight through things and still play pretty well. He relies on different physical assests to be successful than KG. KG on the otherhand, seems to drop off sharply; those high arcing shots just don't fall; he just can't get the shot off down low. That is why I more concern with KG.
-
I have concern, absolutely. Our starting line-up has 4 of 5 returning and the new guy (Lee) is the least important of the 5. How hard should it be to cohere? Whereas the Lakers have 2 new starters who need to be key guys.
My concern is with Pierce and Garnett. So far, they both look old. We go nowhere without Pierce and Garnett (and especially Garnett) playing well (on par with last year). I don't care how many Jeff Greens, Jason Terry's or Darko's you add.
I don't know if this is the year of the big drop off for them (I actually don't think it is) but when it comes, it will come fast and it won't be pretty.
Pierce seems to be able to fight through things and still play pretty well. He relies on different physical assests to be successful than KG. KG on the otherhand, seems to drop off sharply; those high arcing shots just don't fall; he just can't get the shot off down low. That is why I more concern with KG.
we say this same thing every year and they continue to turn back the hands of time, give them a month they aren't in game shape yet and need time to get those old bones going again. once that happens everybody will follow suit I'm not worried.
-
its game 2, you might think that the season is half over and the team looks like this..
its definite lack of cohesion...guys dont seem to have the defense/offense down yet. this team is built to create stops and get out on the fast break, without that we are going to struggle
I thought KG was probably our best player out there last night, im not too worried about him "dropping off"
I have to say, I think we are missing avery bradley right now...we wouldnt be getting as much guard penetration with him out there.
-
Let's talk about paper.
If you're looking at the Celtics "on paper" then this is how our team breaks down.
#1 We have last year's 29th most productive player in the game in Rondo (5th amongst point guards)
#2 We have two aging veteran future hall of famers who both contemplated retirement before this season. To be fair, KG was the 21st most productive player in the league last year. Paul was the 32nd most productive player.
#3 We have a guy coming off heart surgery who is probably a starting caliber small forward, but he's coming off the bench.
#4 Everyone else on our team are role players. None of which should be starters. Bass, for instance, was never supposed to be our starting PF. He got thrown into that role by default because we traded Perk, Shaq retired, Krstik never returned from Europe and our David West deal fell through. He was only intended to be a replacement for that head case Glen Davis... not our starting PF.
Fact: Our team never looks good on paper. Last year, we snuck by Atlanta and Philly in the playoffs in spite of how we looked on paper (half our team was injured, Rondo was playing twice as good as he was in the regular season... and Kevin Garnett was defying the laws of aging)
----
Now let's take a look at the Lakers "on paper"
#1 - They have the last year's 33rd most productive player in Steve Nash (6th amongst point guards). More importantly, he's the best shooter in the world and one of the 4 best "distributors" in the world.
#2 - They have either the 1st or 2nd best SG in the world in Kobe (it's either him or Wade). Even at his age, he's a dominant player. Last year he was the 14th most productive player in the league.
#3 - They have who I believe in probably the 3rd most talented big man in the game in Pau Gasol. He's probably right behind Dwight and Kevin Love. If we ignore age and just look at talent.. I honestly believe Pau Gasol is a better big man than Andrew Bynum. For the record, he was the 8th most productive player in the league last year despite sharing the court with Kobe and Bynum.
#4 - They have unquestionably the best big man in the game in Dwight Howard. In a league where you NEED an elite big man to win a title, the Lakers have the best one of them all. He was the 4th most productive player in the league last year behind Bron, Love and Durant and just ahead of Chris Paul. In this league, you traditionally NEED a top 5 player to win a championship. The Lakers have that.
#5 - Beyond that they have at least two more "starter-caliber" players in Peace and Jamison. Neither of those guys are "great" anymore, but they are both legitimate basketball players. Jamison averaged 17 and 6 last year for the Cavs.
FACT: On paper, the Lakers are unstoppable. The only thing you can really do is blame Mike Brown... a proven hack of a coach. Frankly, on paper they should be on their way to a 70 win season.
One last note: Our 4th best player from last year (Ray Allen) is now coming off Miami's bench. We've replaced him with a handful of undersized guards who didn't crack the NBA's top 100 most productive players last year.
-
#1 We have last year's 29th most productive player in the game in Rondo (5th amongst point guards)
What statistic are using for this?
-
FACT: On paper, the Lakers are unstoppable. The only thing you can really do is blame Mike Brown... a proven hack of a coach. Frankly, on paper they should be on their way to a 70 win season.
Tell that to Damian Lilliard and Darren Collison - both of whom abused LA's backcourt.
I believe that the Lakers will be going very deep into the postseason - just like BOS. But they certainly do have weaknesses.
Those weaknesses will get exploited, to a point, vs young, athletic, quality backcourts (OKC, DEN, MEM, DAL).
Lakers frontcourt is perhaps the best in the NBA, hands down. But they are not that deep. Pau, while still among the best PFs in the game - is older and under/mis-utilized by Mike Brown, and DH is still shaky at the stripe.
Lakers can bring Jordan Hill off the bench, but that's it.
-
#1 We have last year's 29th most productive player in the game in Rondo (5th amongst point guards)
What statistic are using for this?
Hey man the premise of this thread is how we look on paper. I don't doubt that Rondo's impact is felt far more in reality than "on paper". Just like you can't simply look at KG's statistical impact "on paper" and compare it to his impact in the real world.
So if I'm looking on paper, the easiest way to figure out how "productive" a player is... is to look at their efficiency stat. It's a simple equation. Points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks... subtract missed FG, subtracted missed FT and subtract turnovers. Pretty simple and covers all the major traditional stat categories.
Rondo was the 29th most productive player by that equation... and behind CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Deron (in that order).
It's not infallible, but it makes sense. For example, we can compare Rondo to CP3. Rondo averaged more assists than Chris Paul, for instance... But is it more statistically "productive" to average 12 points and 12 assists as Rondo did ... or is it more productive to average 20 points and 9 assists like Chris paul did? If we assume each assist results in 2 points ... then techically Rondo was responsible for 36 points... Chris Paul was responsible for 38 points. Then CP3's higher shooting percentages (CP3 = 48%/37%/86% .... Rondo = 45%/23%/59%), higher steals (CP3 = 2.5 ... Rondo = 1.7) and lower turnovers (CP3 = 2 ... Rondo = 3.6) make up for Rondo's higher rebounds. It becomes a no-contest on who was more productive ON PAPER. Chris Paul's efficiency number = 24.5 (5th best in the league). Rondo's efficiency number = 19.3 (29th best in the league). A lot of H2H-Point fantasy leagues are based on that stat, btw. Of course, most around the NBA would argue that Chris Paul's impact in the real world is FAR greater than "on paper" as well... so either way, it's probably a no-contest.
Feel free to look at them yourself: http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?league=00&season=22011&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&splitScope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All%20Teams
-
LarBrd33, I appreciate your effort to go deep into the numbers.
But I just cannot comprehend one thing.
#2 We have two aging veteran future hall of famers who both contemplated retirement before this season.
Which is a fact, but you still can't say a word on Nash's age from that perspective and Nash was getting abused on the defensive end even the last season, so, I cannot get a hold of this.
Besides, you list Antawn Jamison as a starter-caliber player by citing his season in Cleveland, where he clearly made contribution just because the entire team was trash in offense, Irving excluded.
So, I haven't replied because I'm trying to take something away from your analysis, but I just wanted to add these, as you're probably biased against the Cs in order to keep your objective look. Fine (=
Oh, and about this..
#4 - They have unquestionably the best big man in the game in Dwight Howard.
This is a personal opinion. For me, a healthy Andrew Bynum is a much more dangerous center compared to Dwight Howard. Then again, mine is nothing but a personal opinion, too.
-
LarBrd33, I appreciate your effort to go deep into the numbers.
But I just cannot comprehend one thing.
#2 We have two aging veteran future hall of famers who both contemplated retirement before this season.
Which is a fact, but you still can't say a word on Nash's age from that perspective and Nash was getting abused on the defensive end even the last season, so, I cannot get a hold of this.
Besides, you list Antawn Jamison as a starter-caliber player by citing his season in Cleveland, where he clearly made contribution just because the entire team was trash in offense, Irving excluded.
So, I haven't replied because I'm trying to take something away from your analysis, but I just wanted to add these, as you're probably biased against the Cs in order to keep your objective look. Fine (=
Oh, and about this..
#4 - They have unquestionably the best big man in the game in Dwight Howard.
This is a personal opinion. For me, a healthy Andrew Bynum is a much more dangerous center compared to Dwight Howard. Then again, mine is nothing but a personal opinion, too.
Yeah "on paper" age is a concern for the Lakers as well. That's why I was quick to point out that KG was our most productive player last year (21st best in the league). If he continues playing like that... we might be a solid 6th seed like last year where we defeated an underwhelming Atlanta team missing Horford and an 8th seed Philly team.
My overall point is that I don't see the Celtics as "paper tigers" as all. We never looked that great on paper to begin with. It's not like we're trotting out multiple top 10 players like the Lakers and Heat. Our best guy is nearing retirement. If we succeed this year... it will be IN SPITE of how we look on paper.
We had a mediocre regular season last year, lucked into the ECF and made Miami break a sweat. WE then lost our 4th best player to Miami's bench and filled his role with a handful of average undersized guards. I think "on paper" we're solid... but not "tigers". The Lakers are another story... that team is ridiculous on paper.
-
I can further clarify. When Karl Malone and Gary Payton joined forced with Shaq and Kobe... that was two very productive players joining with two of the most statistically productive players in the entire league. THAT was a team that looked nasty "on paper". They made the finals, but poor chemistry submarined them.
How about the 2008 Celtics? THe year before, Kevin Garnett was the #1 most statistically productive player in the entire league. Ray had been #23. Pierce had been #29. The fact that KG was going to have capable sidekicks made his team look utterly nasty "on paper". It worked out.
How about the Heat? The year before they joined together, LeBron had been the #1 most statistically productive player in the league. Bosh had been #4. Wade had been #10. That team was SICK on paper. It worked out.
This Laker team has the #4 (Dwight), #8 (Pau), #14 (Kobe) and #33 (Nash) all joining forces. On paper... that team is NAAAASTY. That inside-outside game is NASTY. Consider who the pieces are... Dwight's the best big man and the best defensive player in the league. Nash is a perfect distributor and the best shooter in the league... Pau is ridiculous skilled. Kobe is a scoring machine. Check all the boxes... that team is rock solid.
This Celtic team doesn't have that. None of their top players were even in the top 20 last year statistically. KG was #21 on the list, Rondo was #29. Pierce was #32, Beyond that it's purely role players on this team. Jeff Green might be the only "starter" caliber of the entire lot.
-
LarBrd33, I appreciate your effort to go deep into the numbers.
But I just cannot comprehend one thing.
#2 We have two aging veteran future hall of famers who both contemplated retirement before this season.
Which is a fact, but you still can't say a word on Nash's age from that perspective and Nash was getting abused on the defensive end even the last season, so, I cannot get a hold of this.
Besides, you list Antawn Jamison as a starter-caliber player by citing his season in Cleveland, where he clearly made contribution just because the entire team was trash in offense, Irving excluded.
So, I haven't replied because I'm trying to take something away from your analysis, but I just wanted to add these, as you're probably biased against the Cs in order to keep your objective look. Fine (=
Oh, and about this..
#4 - They have unquestionably the best big man in the game in Dwight Howard.
This is a personal opinion. For me, a healthy Andrew Bynum is a much more dangerous center compared to Dwight Howard. Then again, mine is nothing but a personal opinion, too.
Yeah "on paper" age is a concern for the Lakers as well. That's why I was quick to point out that KG was our most productive player last year (21st best in the league). If he continues playing like that... we might be a solid 6th seed like last year where we defeated an underwhelming Atlanta team missing Horford and an 8th seed Philly team.
My overall point is that I don't see the Celtics as "paper tigers" as all. We never looked that great on paper to begin with. It's not like we're trotting out multiple top 10 players like the Lakers and Heat. Our best guy is nearing retirement. If we succeed this year... it will be IN SPITE of how we look on paper.
We had a mediocre regular season last year, lucked into the ECF and made Miami break a sweat. WE then lost our 4th best player to Miami's bench and filled his role with a handful of average undersized guards. I think "on paper" we're solid... but not "tigers". The Lakers are another story... that team is ridiculous on paper.
Yeah, about that, I don't suppose anyone can think of Celtics as highly as they did of Lakers at any point this season. Lakers are clearly one of the powerhouses with that starting five, and if Nash keeps a solid level of playing and Artest contributes, they'll be very difficult to beat.
But from my point of view, with Howard replacing Bynum, Lakers didn't get a huge upgrade in that position. They just got a media hype boost, if that's what they were looking for. Their best bet to be a better team as a whole is Steve Nash at the moment. And you cannot say that their role players have any more significant value than the guys Celtics are going to play. If that means anything, I guess Ray as the 6th man of the Heat looks a whole lot more dangerous than anyone else in the entire Lakers bench.
That is, while Celtics are a far cry to be "paper tigers" from the beginning, Lakers are also way too overrated. They aren't going to steamroll their every single opponent as some indescribably expect them to do.
-
LarBrd33, I appreciate your effort to go deep into the numbers.
But I just cannot comprehend one thing.
#2 We have two aging veteran future hall of famers who both contemplated retirement before this season.
Which is a fact, but you still can't say a word on Nash's age from that perspective and Nash was getting abused on the defensive end even the last season, so, I cannot get a hold of this.
Besides, you list Antawn Jamison as a starter-caliber player by citing his season in Cleveland, where he clearly made contribution just because the entire team was trash in offense, Irving excluded.
So, I haven't replied because I'm trying to take something away from your analysis, but I just wanted to add these, as you're probably biased against the Cs in order to keep your objective look. Fine (=
Oh, and about this..
#4 - They have unquestionably the best big man in the game in Dwight Howard.
This is a personal opinion. For me, a healthy Andrew Bynum is a much more dangerous center compared to Dwight Howard. Then again, mine is nothing but a personal opinion, too.
Yeah "on paper" age is a concern for the Lakers as well. That's why I was quick to point out that KG was our most productive player last year (21st best in the league). If he continues playing like that... we might be a solid 6th seed like last year where we defeated an underwhelming Atlanta team missing Horford and an 8th seed Philly team.
My overall point is that I don't see the Celtics as "paper tigers" as all. We never looked that great on paper to begin with. It's not like we're trotting out multiple top 10 players like the Lakers and Heat. Our best guy is nearing retirement. If we succeed this year... it will be IN SPITE of how we look on paper.
We had a mediocre regular season last year, lucked into the ECF and made Miami break a sweat. WE then lost our 4th best player to Miami's bench and filled his role with a handful of average undersized guards. I think "on paper" we're solid... but not "tigers". The Lakers are another story... that team is ridiculous on paper.
Yeah, about that, I don't suppose anyone can think of Celtics as highly as they did of Lakers at any point this season. Lakers are clearly one of the powerhouses with that starting five, and if Nash keeps a solid level of playing and Artest contributes, they'll be very difficult to beat.
But from my point of view, with Howard replacing Bynum, Lakers didn't get a huge upgrade in that position. They just got a media hype boost, if that's what they were looking for. Their best bet to be a better team as a whole is Steve Nash at the moment. And you cannot say that their role players have any more significant value than the guys Celtics are going to play. If that means anything, I guess Ray as the 6th man of the Heat looks a whole lot more dangerous than anyone else in the entire Lakers bench.
That is, while Celtics are a far cry to be "paper tigers" from the beginning, Lakers are also way too overrated. They aren't going to steamroll their every single opponent as some indescribably expect them to do.
Look... if Andrew Bynum is better than Dwight Howard... then by definition the 76ers are better on paper than the Celtics. If Bynum is better than the guy who averaged 21 points, 15 rebounds, 2 blocks, 1.5 steals on 57% shooting last season .. and 24, 14, 2.5 and 60% shooting the year before... then Philly is getting an absolutely dominant force and is a contender by default.
-
Look... if Andrew Bynum is better than Dwight Howard... then by definition the 76ers are better on paper than the Celtics.
I don't know how this correlates so directly, but the 76ers lack a go-to-scorer in the backcourt and that hasn't changed. Unless Evan Turner takes a big leap this season, there is no way they are going to be a better team than the Celtics. They just bring more energy onto the floor, but their offense is severely limited, won't you say?
-
Look... if Andrew Bynum is better than Dwight Howard... then by definition the 76ers are better on paper than the Celtics.
I don't know how this correlates so directly, but the 76ers lack a go-to-scorer in the backcourt and that hasn't changed. Unless Evan Turner takes a big leap this season, there is no way they are going to be a better team than the Celtics. They just bring more energy onto the floor, but their offense is severely limited, won't you say?
It's simple NBA math. Essentially every champion has had an elite big man. Essentially every champion has had a top 5-10 player. Dwight gets check marks for both. He's a dominant player in this league. He made Orlando a contender simply by being there (regardless of the trash he was surrounded with)... You're telling me Bynum is better... so Philly is a force by your logic.
I don't agree with either, though. Dwight is better than Bynum.
-
#1 We have last year's 29th most productive player in the game in Rondo (5th amongst point guards)
What statistic are using for this?
Hey man the premise of this thread is how we look on paper. I don't doubt that Rondo's impact is felt far more in reality than "on paper". Just like you can't simply look at KG's statistical impact "on paper" and compare it to his impact in the real world.
So if I'm looking on paper, the easiest way to figure out how "productive" a player is... is to look at their efficiency stat. It's a simple equation. Points + rebounds + assists + steals + blocks... subtract missed FG, subtracted missed FT and subtract turnovers. Pretty simple and covers all the major traditional stat categories.
Rondo was the 29th most productive player by that equation... and behind CP3, Westbrook, Rose and Deron (in that order).
It's not infallible, but it makes sense. For example, we can compare Rondo to CP3. Rondo averaged more assists than Chris Paul, for instance... But is it more statistically "productive" to average 12 points and 12 assists as Rondo did ... or is it more productive to average 20 points and 9 assists like Chris paul did? If we assume each assist results in 2 points ... then techically Rondo was responsible for 36 points... Chris Paul was responsible for 38 points. Then CP3's higher shooting percentages (CP3 = 48%/37%/86% .... Rondo = 45%/23%/59%), higher steals (CP3 = 2.5 ... Rondo = 1.7) and lower turnovers (CP3 = 2 ... Rondo = 3.6) make up for Rondo's higher rebounds. It becomes a no-contest on who was more productive ON PAPER. Chris Paul's efficiency number = 24.5 (5th best in the league). Rondo's efficiency number = 19.3 (29th best in the league). A lot of H2H-Point fantasy leagues are based on that stat, btw. Of course, most around the NBA would argue that Chris Paul's impact in the real world is FAR greater than "on paper" as well... so either way, it's probably a no-contest.
Feel free to look at them yourself: http://www.nba.com/statistics/player/Efficiency.jsp?league=00&season=22011&conf=OVERALL&position=0&splitType=9&splitScope=GAME&qualified=N&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=All%20Teams
If you are looking at efficiency numbers, it makes more sense to use one like this one, which includes the playoffs:
http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/playerstats/12/1/eff/1-1