Better offense without Thomas?

[Phantom255x]

Idk, you guys tell me 

[Roy H.]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

[D Dub]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

Agreed.  Something has gone rotten in the defense.   Can't put my finger on what exactly...

Wondering if all those big paydays last offseason made some of the vets hold back a little?

[Miranda-Kerr]

Name one player besides IT on the team that can consistently score 20+ points

[D Dub]

Name one player besides IT on the team that can consistently score 20+ points

You can stop holding your breath now

[max215]

Not only was our offense way worse, but the defense was no better. You can either view this in a positive or negative light. On the one hand, Isaiah is not the fatal flaw he's made out to be. On the other, this defense has some pretty fundamental flaws that must be addressed before next year. Seeing as the roster should be significantly different next year, I'll take solace in knowing that IT is not the problem.

[Csfan1984]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

Agreed.  Something has gone rotten in the defense.   Can't put my finger on what exactly...

Wondering if all those big paydays last offseason made some of the vets hold back a little?

About the D. I find that the bigs can't switch or protect the paint. The easiest way to score on the C's is go at IT or pick Smart /AB and go right at the big man who retreats(ice) for an easy lay up or pull up. Last year guys tried to iso more and that was easy for the team to lock down. The league has learned how to attack our D.

[action781]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

While I'm not saying our offense is better without IT, I don't think that this series necessarily laid to rest the idea (or "myth") that it isn't to those who believe that.  The Celtics scored 104 and 86 in games 1 & 2 with IT this series, then scored 111, 99, and 102 without him.  No evidence here that screams "See!  Our offense died once we lost IT!"  (If your counter argument is to say the point totals are unreliable because they were all blowouts padded by garbage points at the end, then it's worth seeing the Celtics only mustered 39 and 31 points in the first halves of games 1 and 2.)

You're right, the offense being better without IT isn't supportable by any metric.  All the metrics definitely show that our offense is better with IT.  But it's also pretty clear that our IT-centric offense is going to eventually fail in the playoffs when we play a team that has an elite defender with size with two weeks to game plan for only our team.

[Moranis]

Name one player besides IT on the team that can consistently score 20+ points

Bradley scored 20, 19, and 23 in the final 3 games and shot a pretty good percentage.

Horford didn't show up today and KO, Smart, and Rozier shot horribly though had plenty of open looks.  There was a lot better overall ball movement without the ball stopper on the court the last 3 games, but at the end of the day Boston is a bunch of B- at best level players (without Thomas). They were never going to beat Cleveland in a series as long as James was healthy. 

[Moranis]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

While I'm not saying our offense is better without IT, I don't think that this series necessarily laid to rest the idea (or "myth") that it isn't to those who believe that.  The Celtics scored 104 and 86 in games 1 & 2 with IT this series, then scored 111, 99, and 102 without him.  No evidence here that screams "See!  Our offense died once we lost IT!"  (If your counter argument is to say the point totals are unreliable because they were all blowouts padded by garbage points at the end, then it's worth seeing the Celtics only mustered 39 and 31 points in the first halves of games 1 and 2.)

You're right, the offense being better without IT isn't supportable by any metric.  All the metrics definitely show that our offense is better with IT.  But it's also pretty clear that our IT-centric offense is going to eventually fail in the playoffs when we play a team that has an elite defender with size with two weeks to game plan for only our team.

they also gave up less ppg over those 3 games as compared to the first 2 and won one of them.  Last time I checked scoring more and giving up less is a good thing.

[action781]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

This showed to be pretty true this series.  And is kind of frightening.  If you can't be even mediocre defensively with Bradley, Smart, Crowder, and Horford all on the floor.... is creating a team built around a defensive-identity even possible anymore in the NBA?

[Roy H.]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

While I'm not saying our offense is better without IT, I don't think that this series necessarily laid to rest the idea (or "myth") that it isn't to those who believe that.  The Celtics scored 104 and 86 in games 1 & 2 with IT this series, then scored 111, 99, and 102 without him.  No evidence here that screams "See!  Our offense died once we lost IT!"  (If your counter argument is to say the point totals are unreliable because they were all blowouts padded by garbage points at the end, then it's worth seeing the Celtics only mustered 39 and 31 points in the first halves of games 1 and 2.)

You're right, the offense being better without IT isn't supportable by any metric.  All the metrics definitely show that our offense is better with IT.  But it's also pretty clear that our IT-centric offense is going to eventually fail in the playoffs when we play a team that has an elite defender with size with two weeks to game plan for only our team.

IT was playing on a torn labrum in Games 1 and 2. That made a significant difference.

[mmmmm]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

I wish I could give you hundreds of TPs for this.  One will have to do.

[cltc5]

Team chemistry takes a hit with it as the focal point of the offense.  Of course our offense is gonna be worse when he's out because he is the offense!  And ainge has done nothing to bring in a second scorer while Brad just let It do his thing all year.  How hard is it to defend a team that has only one scoring option.  When the ball moves around and we have other options, that cause the other teams to do various adjustments.  How many touches do we think fultz is gonna get next year along side IT?  Either ainge needs to get a second option and/or Stevens needs to put his foot down and make IT run the offense as facilitator and not just the only scoring option.  Again, it would be great as a 6 th man, but ya know then he'd be like that guy in San Antonio that has a few rings...what's his name?  Ginobli?

[action781]

So, can we put two myths to rest?

1) The idea that our offense is better without IT just isn't supportable by any metric;

2) Our defense struggles even with Smart and AB in there. The idea that we can get by Cleveland by being an elite defensive team isn't accurate.

The goal is to outscore the other team. Our best chance of doing that is with IT, Fultz, and hopefully Hayward.

While I'm not saying our offense is better without IT, I don't think that this series necessarily laid to rest the idea (or "myth") that it isn't to those who believe that.  The Celtics scored 104 and 86 in games 1 & 2 with IT this series, then scored 111, 99, and 102 without him.  No evidence here that screams "See!  Our offense died once we lost IT!"  (If your counter argument is to say the point totals are unreliable because they were all blowouts padded by garbage points at the end, then it's worth seeing the Celtics only mustered 39 and 31 points in the first halves of games 1 and 2.)

You're right, the offense being better without IT isn't supportable by any metric.  All the metrics definitely show that our offense is better with IT.  But it's also pretty clear that our IT-centric offense is going to eventually fail in the playoffs when we play a team that has an elite defender with size with two weeks to game plan for only our team.

IT was playing on a torn labrum in Games 1 and 2. That made a significant difference.

OK, even ignoring games 1 and 2... Celtics scored 111, 99, and 102 without IT.  That alone doesn't "put the myth to rest" that the Celtics offense is worse without IT.  Those outputs are pretty on par with the rest of our playoff numbers -- even against lesser defensive teams.