Author Topic: The case for going Big  (Read 1002 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The case for going Big
« on: September 25, 2017, 03:45:30 AM »

Offline KG Living Legend

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6635
  • Tommy Points: 1172

 We actually would look good on the Boards with this five. Against big team's it could work.

Baynes
Horford
Hayward
Brown
Kyrie

 Then sub Baynes and Brown and Maybe Horford for Smart, Tatum and Morris

Horford
Morris
Tatum
Hayward
Irving/Smart

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2017, 05:38:19 AM »

Offline LGC88

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1495
  • Tommy Points: 167
I believe this team won't have a rebounding issue this time.
With the length overall, team rebounding should be league average at least.

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2017, 06:15:10 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14916
  • Tommy Points: 947
The trouble is not convincing folks here, it would be convincing Ainge.  Ainge does not seem to think that you need more than one and four lengthy versatile guys.  Time will tell...

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2017, 07:08:58 AM »

Offline Surferdad

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8288
  • Tommy Points: 507
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
The current league trend is that rebounding is not that important if you have everything else.

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2017, 07:22:48 AM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3589
  • Tommy Points: 324
I don't want to shock anyone but I've recently discovered a tactic that could revolutionize the NBA if it ever caught on and could make rebounding much easier if the Celtics starting using this tactic before the rest of the NBA found out about it. It must be brand new because no one in the NBA uses it now. They call it "boxing out" and it really is something.

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2017, 07:35:31 AM »

Offline PAOBoston

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2151
  • Tommy Points: 130
I believe this team won't have a rebounding issue this time.
With the length overall, team rebounding should be league average at least.
This. The Cs don't need to be great at rebounding. They just have to not stink. Being closer to league average as opposed to almost last is a decent sized jump.

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2017, 07:37:22 AM »

Online SHAQATTACK

  • NCE
  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25546
  • Tommy Points: 1946
Marc Gasol would be a nice weapon

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2017, 08:17:34 AM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12285
  • Tommy Points: 835
The current league trend is that rebounding is not that important if you have everything else.

It also goes back to setting up your defense. Even the Pierce/KG era Celtics were one of the worst rebounding teams in the league due to the fact that the purposely got back on defense after shots as opposed to crashing for offensive boards.

Stevens's system takes pride in this same thing and, to me at least, it puts the rebounding issue on the lower level of the totem pole.
CB Draft 2016:
PG:Tony Parker/Mo Williams
SG:Alec Burks/Manu Ginobili
SF:Al Farouq-Aminu/Jared Dudley/Tony Snell
PF:Dirk Nowitzki/JaMychal Green
C: Deandre Jordan/Roy Hibbert/Alex Len

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2017, 08:51:38 AM »

Offline BitterJim

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4568
  • Tommy Points: 634
Unless we add another real big, starting Al and Baynes together would be a huge mistake.  If Al plays the same 32.3 minutes he played last year, and Baynes plays the same 15.5 he played last year, that leaves us just short at the Center spot. Figure Baynes plays a bit more, and we'd just barely cover it.  Start them together (even if you only keep them out there together for a couple of minutes) and you'll have to either have to give Al the most minutes he's played since he was 26 or give Baynes a new career high. There's no one else on this roster that I want playing center, even in a small ball lineup (unless Theis is a big surprise)

It's viable if we add another big, though. And we need another big anyway because, right now, and injury to Al would mean Baynes doubling his career high for MPG (16 -> 32) AND either Theis stepping up or a ton of small ball with someone like Yabusele at the 5
I'm bitter.

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2017, 09:04:34 AM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12285
  • Tommy Points: 835
Unless we add another real big, starting Al and Baynes together would be a huge mistake.  If Al plays the same 32.3 minutes he played last year, and Baynes plays the same 15.5 he played last year, that leaves us just short at the Center spot. Figure Baynes plays a bit more, and we'd just barely cover it.  Start them together (even if you only keep them out there together for a couple of minutes) and you'll have to either have to give Al the most minutes he's played since he was 26 or give Baynes a new career high. There's no one else on this roster that I want playing center, even in a small ball lineup (unless Theis is a big surprise)

It's viable if we add another big, though. And we need another big anyway because, right now, and injury to Al would mean Baynes doubling his career high for MPG (16 -> 32) AND either Theis stepping up or a ton of small ball with someone like Yabusele at the 5

Yeah at this stage of his career I think Horford has to play the center slot. give him 30 minutes a game there and let Baynes take the other 18 a game.
CB Draft 2016:
PG:Tony Parker/Mo Williams
SG:Alec Burks/Manu Ginobili
SF:Al Farouq-Aminu/Jared Dudley/Tony Snell
PF:Dirk Nowitzki/JaMychal Green
C: Deandre Jordan/Roy Hibbert/Alex Len

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2017, 12:19:34 PM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3933
  • Tommy Points: 294
Love him or hate him, we're going to be surprised at how much we'll need to have Baynes on the floor this year.
 

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2017, 10:59:51 PM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 712
  • Tommy Points: 104

 We actually would look good on the Boards with this five. Against big team's it could work.

Baynes
Horford
Hayward
Brown
Kyrie

 Then sub Baynes and Brown and Maybe Horford for Smart, Tatum and Morris

Horford
Morris
Tatum
Hayward
Irving/Smart

I'm going to get up on my hobby horse again about rebounding:

Offensive and defensive rebounding are different and should be treated separately.  Short version: how much commitment a team makes to offensive rebounding is variable. Defensive rebounding commitment is not variable. Defensive rebounding is a lot more important than offensive.

Brad Stevens' offense lifts the bigs to clear the lane for drives. The commitment to offensive rebounding is not great, and that's not likely to change much next season.

Defensive rebounding is not optional. Yes, you can get away with less if you force more turnovers; last year Boston was middle of the pack for that, and it's not obvious that the Celtics would be any better at it this year.

Does Baynes start, and would it make a difference in defensive rebounding, compared to last season? It should make a difference at one position - he was substantially better than Amir last season. I can see arguments pro and con for him starting, and his defensive rebounding might be the best pro argument.

Here's the defensive rebounding comparison with your starting lineup and last year's:

Irving 7.5% / Thomas 7.0%
Brown 14.4% / Bradley 16.2%
Hayward 15.4% / Crowder 17.3%
Baynes 21.6% / Johnson 17.0%
Horford 18.6%

Comparing in this way, there's a slight advantage to 2018. If Morris starts, the numbers swing bigly the other way.

I think that this is going to be a problem.

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2017, 12:19:28 AM »

Offline trickybilly

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3040
  • Tommy Points: 327

 We actually would look good on the Boards with this five. Against big team's it could work.

Baynes
Horford
Hayward
Brown
Kyrie

 Then sub Baynes and Brown and Maybe Horford for Smart, Tatum and Morris

Horford
Morris
Tatum
Hayward
Irving/Smart

I'm going to get up on my hobby horse again about rebounding:

Offensive and defensive rebounding are different and should be treated separately.  Short version: how much commitment a team makes to offensive rebounding is variable. Defensive rebounding commitment is not variable. Defensive rebounding is a lot more important than offensive.

Brad Stevens' offense lifts the bigs to clear the lane for drives. The commitment to offensive rebounding is not great, and that's not likely to change much next season.

Defensive rebounding is not optional. Yes, you can get away with less if you force more turnovers; last year Boston was middle of the pack for that, and it's not obvious that the Celtics would be any better at it this year.

Does Baynes start, and would it make a difference in defensive rebounding, compared to last season? It should make a difference at one position - he was substantially better than Amir last season. I can see arguments pro and con for him starting, and his defensive rebounding might be the best pro argument.

Here's the defensive rebounding comparison with your starting lineup and last year's:

Irving 7.5% / Thomas 7.0%
Brown 14.4% / Bradley 16.2%
Hayward 15.4% / Crowder 17.3%
Baynes 21.6% / Johnson 17.0%
Horford 18.6%

Comparing in this way, there's a slight advantage to 2018. If Morris starts, the numbers swing bigly the other way.

I think that this is going to be a problem.

Nice analysis actually. Covfefe.
"Gimme the ball, gimme the ball". Freddy Quimby, 1994.

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2017, 01:32:07 AM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 712
  • Tommy Points: 104

 We actually would look good on the Boards with this five. Against big team's it could work.

Baynes
Horford
Hayward
Brown
Kyrie

 Then sub Baynes and Brown and Maybe Horford for Smart, Tatum and Morris

Horford
Morris
Tatum
Hayward
Irving/Smart

I'm going to get up on my hobby horse again about rebounding:

Offensive and defensive rebounding are different and should be treated separately.  Short version: how much commitment a team makes to offensive rebounding is variable. Defensive rebounding commitment is not variable. Defensive rebounding is a lot more important than offensive.

Brad Stevens' offense lifts the bigs to clear the lane for drives. The commitment to offensive rebounding is not great, and that's not likely to change much next season.

Defensive rebounding is not optional. Yes, you can get away with less if you force more turnovers; last year Boston was middle of the pack for that, and it's not obvious that the Celtics would be any better at it this year.

Does Baynes start, and would it make a difference in defensive rebounding, compared to last season? It should make a difference at one position - he was substantially better than Amir last season. I can see arguments pro and con for him starting, and his defensive rebounding might be the best pro argument.

Here's the defensive rebounding comparison with your starting lineup and last year's:

Irving 7.5% / Thomas 7.0%
Brown 14.4% / Bradley 16.2%
Hayward 15.4% / Crowder 17.3%
Baynes 21.6% / Johnson 17.0%
Horford 18.6%

Comparing in this way, there's a slight advantage to 2018. If Morris starts, the numbers swing bigly the other way.

I think that this is going to be a problem.

Nice analysis actually. Covfefe.

Well played, sir!

Re: The case for going Big
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2017, 10:36:21 AM »

Online CELTICSofBOSTON

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 412
  • Tommy Points: 53
We do not have a great amount of depth upfront as far as proven talent.  Al Horford is great.  I'm Marcus Morris's biggest fan but he is more of a big three (doesn't rebound well).  Aron Baynes is solid at what he does but doesn't do much offensively.

Besides those three, there is Daniel Theis and Guerschon Yabusele -- two unproven bigs.

This is why I am in favor of trading for Jahlil Okafor; to balance out our roster and add some size up front.  I think Brad Stevens can get the best out of Okafor.  The only challenge is matching salaries.  If we can match salaries and throw Philly our 1st (top 20 protected) then thats a great deal for us.  If he starts, Al can play the 4 which he prefers.  If he comes off the bench, he and Jayson Tatum can provide scoring for the 2nd unit.

Low risk, potentially high reward for a guy who was once deemed the next great big man.  He has his athletic limitations and is not a great defender or aggressive re bounder but worst case scenario, we have an Enes Kanter/ Greg Monroe type bench big for the price of a late first and out of rotation guys.

Anyone have a creative way to get Jah to the Celtics?
It's about to be crazy, G.