Celtics to play bigger than Last year

[Evantime34]

http://www.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2015/09/brad_stevens_boston_celtics_co.html

"We have more traditional bigs (than) last year," he said, "so we have to play a little bit more traditional and we have to be prepared to do that well."

Some people expressed worry that log jams in the front court would cut into playing time of young players the Celtics can develop. I don't really buy this, my concern has more to do with the log jam in the front court causing the C's to go big more often.

Last year Boston was best when they went small and showed versatility, I think playing more traditional lineups could lead to a worse record than last year. I am really hoping they make some trades in order to build a small ball heavy team like the one that was successful in the second half of last year.

[hwangjini_1]

http://www.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2015/09/brad_stevens_boston_celtics_co.html

"We have more traditional bigs (than) last year," he said, "so we have to play a little bit more traditional and we have to be prepared to do that well."

Some people expressed worry that log jams in the front court would cut into playing time of young players the Celtics can develop. I don't really buy this, my concern has more to do with the log jam in the front court causing the C's to go big more often.

Last year Boston was best when they went small and showed versatility, I think playing more traditional lineups could lead to a worse record than last year. I am really hoping they make some trades in order to build a small ball heavy team like the one that was successful in the second half of last year.

do you think that perhaps since the celtics now have added two legitimate big men that his might have shifted things a bit?

[Evantime34]

http://www.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2015/09/brad_stevens_boston_celtics_co.html

"We have more traditional bigs (than) last year," he said, "so we have to play a little bit more traditional and we have to be prepared to do that well."

Some people expressed worry that log jams in the front court would cut into playing time of young players the Celtics can develop. I don't really buy this, my concern has more to do with the log jam in the front court causing the C's to go big more often.

Last year Boston was best when they went small and showed versatility, I think playing more traditional lineups could lead to a worse record than last year. I am really hoping they make some trades in order to build a small ball heavy team like the one that was successful in the second half of last year.

do you think that perhaps since the celtics now have added two legitimate big men that his might have shifted things a bit?

Adding two legit big men is certainly why it shifted.

However, I am worried that other players who showed to be good playing small ball will be less effective playing in a standard lineup.

Lee and Johnson are clearly better than what we had (and a healthy in shape Sully should be better than last year's version), but if playing two bigs at once all the time clogs the lane for Thomas and makes Crowder less effective I'm not sure it's an upgrade overall.

[PhoSita]

The team has at least 5 big men who are all deserving of playing time, plus a 6'10'' swing man who earned a lot of playing time toward the end of last season.

So yeah, Brad has pretty much no choice but to go big a lot of the time.  To play small you have to have quality wing players in abundance, and the Celts don't.

[Evantime34]

The team has at least 5 big men who are all deserving of playing time, plus a 6'10'' swing man who earned a lot of playing time toward the end of last season.

So yeah, Brad has pretty much no choice but to go big a lot of the time.  To play small you have to have quality wing players in abundance, and the Celts don't.

What wings did they lose from last year when they played small successfully. I think they absolutely have the pieces to play small.

To me the solution to having 5 big men deserving of playing time is making a trade or two.

[clover]

So who loses out from last year? All I can figure is less of Jae at the 4 and less of ET at the 3. If the young guards come on fast enough, less of AB at the 2, too.

[Evantime34]

So who loses out from last year? All I can figure is less of Jae at the 4 and less of ET at the 3. If the young guards come on fast enough, less of AB at the 2, too.

Agree with all this, I would add that I think we will see Jerebko less until a trade is made.

[littleteapot]

If spreading with shooters is the best we can do, why would we go with 2 bigs just because we have depth there? I don't think we were going with 3 guard lineups with Crowder or Jonas at the 4 because bigs were in foul trouble or anything - I think we usually did it because it made our offense work. I'm not sure Lee and Amir are so much better than Zeller, Bass and Sully that we will be able to keep up with teams with a traditional lineup.

[PhoSita]

So who loses out from last year? All I can figure is less of Jae at the 4 and less of ET at the 3. If the young guards come on fast enough, less of AB at the 2, too.

I doubt Jae will play at the 4 much.  Jerebko will get limited minutes and probably never get used at the 5 again.  ET will probably get fewer minutes (we can hope).  Kelly will probably be in a timeshare with Sullinger and Zeller for backup minutes at the 4 and 5.  How much he plays will depend on matchups.

[PhoSita]

If spreading with shooters is the best we can do, why would we go with 2 bigs just because we have depth there?

Couple of reasons:

1. Generally the best strategy is to find ways to give the most playing time to your best players
2. The team doesn't really have any great shooters, so going with the "spread shooting" strategy only makes sense if that is consistent with #1.

[littleteapot]

Couple of reasons:

1. Generally the best strategy is to find ways to give the most playing time to your best players
2. The team doesn't really have any great shooters, so going with the "spread shooting" strategy only makes sense if that is consistent with #1.

While both of these are true, I think offensively we should still be guard-dominated and we don't really have guards that can play their best game when the paint is clogged. I don't know what you are gaining by predominantly having 2 traditional bigs if you're a guard-oriented offense with no great shot-making guard and can't get great rim protection out of the second big.

[Evantime34]

Couple of reasons:

1. Generally the best strategy is to find ways to give the most playing time to your best players
2. The team doesn't really have any great shooters, so going with the "spread shooting" strategy only makes sense if that is consistent with #1.

While both of these are true, I think offensively we should still be guard-dominated and we don't really have guards that can play their best game when the paint is clogged. I don't know what you are gaining by predominantly having 2 traditional bigs if you're a guard-oriented offense with no great shot-making guard and can't get great rim protection out of the second big.

The counter to this is that all our bigs besides David Lee (depending on how you feel about Sullinger) can shoot the 3. So there is a chance that we could play 2 bigs and still space the floor.

The difference in my mind is that the small ball lineups from last year produced well defensively behind a switch everything defense. I expect consistently going with lineups of 2 bigs (especially when only one of the bigs is really a plus defensively) to really hurt the defense.

[mgent]

The teams who" try to play traditionally" only do so because those are the type of players they have.

Since we have the personnel to play both ways, why wouldn't we?

It's called just look at who our opponent is playing and then match up with whatever line-up suits us best.

It's really not that hard....

[PhoSita]

While both of these are true, I think offensively we should still be guard-dominated and we don't really have guards that can play their best game when the paint is clogged. I don't know what you are gaining by predominantly having 2 traditional bigs if you're a guard-oriented offense with no great shot-making guard and can't get great rim protection out of the second big.

Well, I think our most ball-dominant guard will be coming off the bench when there are three point shooters in the frontcourt.

That's part of the reason Stevens brought Thomas off the bench last year, I believe, and will continue to do so.

Smart, Bradley, and Turner will probably benefit from playing with bigs who are better at scoring inside and grabbing offensive rebounds.

[Big333223]

Couple of reasons:

1. Generally the best strategy is to find ways to give the most playing time to your best players
2. The team doesn't really have any great shooters, so going with the "spread shooting" strategy only makes sense if that is consistent with #1.

I feel like this important and something a lot of people forget. Yes, small ball won the championship last season but don't forget that the Cavs lost 2 all stars and made that a competetive series by playing big. Is it because one strategy was better than the other? No. It was because each team needed to play to the strength of its roster. Personel changes how a team will compete.