[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V8 #275
McCleod shipped to Boston
Boston, MA (Sports Network) - The Boston Celtics acquired forward Roshown
McLeod and a future first round draft choice Friday from the Philadelphia
76ers for Jerome Moiso.
McLeod and Dikembe Mutombo were acquired from Atlanta on February 22, a deal
that sent Toni Kukoc, Nazr Mohammed, Pepe Sanchez and Theo Ratliff to the
Hawks.
The 6-8, 230-pound forward was selected 20th overall by the Hawks in 1998.
McLeod played two seasons at St. John's University before playing two years
under Coach Krzyzewski as a Duke Blue Devil where he was an honorable
mention All-American candidate in 1998.
In 36 games with the Sixers and Hawks, he averaged 9.6 points and 3.4
rebounds per game.
Moiso, a 6-10 forward played just two years at UCLA, posting 12.0 points per
game. He was drafted 11th overall in the 2000 NBA Draft and averaged 1.5
points and 1.8 rebounds in 24 contests for Boston last season.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that I expect much from McCleod, but Moiso was pure garbage. We at
least get a future #1 pick. Good Trade Obie & Wallace!
-----Original Message-----
From: Celtics-Digest-Owner@igtc.com
[mailto:Celtics-Digest-Owner@igtc.com]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 12:45 PM
To: Celtics-Digest@igtc.com
Subject: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V8 #275
The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest
Friday, August 3 2001 Volume 08 : Number 275
In this issue:
Re: ESPN on Jordan's comeback, Walker briefly mentioned
Re: ESPN on Jordan's comeback, Walker briefly mentioned
Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
Re: The Truth Hurts
Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
Re: The Truth Hurts
Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
It's half-full guys
Re: It's half-full guys...
Another move the Celtics aren't making...
Why not Marc Jackson?
agreed on the Bucks, but
Re: agreed on the Bucks, but
yes on Marc Jackson
Re: Why not Marc Jackson?
Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
Re: The Truth Hurts
Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
RE: Sporting news article on Pierce
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 01:43:07 -0400
From: Mark Piotrowski <markp@edu15.coe.ufl.edu>
Subject: Re: ESPN on Jordan's comeback, Walker briefly mentioned
>http://espn.go.com/magazine/telander_20010802.html
>
>The author, Rick Telander, apparantly watched some of the secret summer
>workout games hosted by Jordan. I really, really hope that he's
>exagerrating things a bit, particularly the part about Walker losing
>over and over again.
Wow, lets call off the season!
Imagine a team with Antoine Walker losing "again and again" to a team
with Michael Jordan?!?
that's unheard of!!! And it most certainly confirms every negative
thing Paul M. (yes i know...), Bob Ryan, Dan Ryan, Dan Rather, Way of
Ray, Ray Knight, Bob Knight, Knight Rider, JR Rider, Easy Rider and
everyone else has ever said about our co-captain. Trade him for Ron
Artest -- at least he doesn't take any of MJ's shit, right? Or how
about Austin Croshere and 3 packs of gum?
but wait a minute....didn't a team with Stockton & Malone lose "again
and again" to a team with MJ? And wasn't there a team with Barkley &
KJ...."again and again". Payton & Kemp? Drexler & CRobinson? Ewing
& Mark Jax....again and again?
ESPN is making me sick with this Jordan return thing. If he comes
back great, it will be interesting to see him play again -- and to
see if he's still the MJ of 3 years ago. And if he doesn't, fine.
Either way there are lots of things to be excited about with next
years NBA. Duh, MJ is still one of the top 3-4 players if he comes
back. Duh he's better than Antoine. Man if that is all it takes to
be a ESPN columnist, where do i sign up?
I don't care about that. All i care about (well in terms of this
discussion) is that the C's are 4-0 against the Wiz -- with or
without His Airness.
let the games begin!! (sorry francis didn't mean to shoot the messenger)
mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:00:42 +0200
From: "j.hironaka" <j.hironaka@unesco.org>
Subject: Re: ESPN on Jordan's comeback, Walker briefly mentioned
At 00:28 03/08/01 -0400, you wrote:
>http://espn.go.com/magazine/telander_20010802.html
>
>The author, Rick Telander, apparantly watched some of the secret summer
>workout games hosted by Jordan. I really, really hope that he's
>exagerrating things a bit, particularly the part about Walker losing
>over and over again.
Hir Francis:
Trying to find some additional consolation, Telander based his article on
having watched one day of scrimmages, plus he's a bit of a groupie. Also,
treys counted for only one point, so if Walker was having one of those 2-10
games from downtown....
Maybe someone can goof Antoine into believing this is a league-wide rule
change in the NBA, so he'll tone it down just a notch. ;-)
Let's face it, the three point set shot is a big part of what Walker feels
he needs to elevate into the consistent 20+ points per game. He's quite
able to get that shot off clean like Magic used to.
Still, he'd be a hell of a Celtics player if he grew comfortable with 18
points per game and focused even greater attention on his more remarkable
gifts (passing, rebounding). I doubt there is any greater high than going
for an NBA triple-double, and it is the type of thing that is respected
throughout the game because many household name All Stars never achieve one
in their entire careers.
- ----
Regarding the debate about the top eight Eastern teams, IMO the more talent
that flows into our conference the better everyone's chances will be.
Things turned a bit upside down in the past decade, with the East becoming
daintier and softer. So I welcome seeing Mourning, Mutombo, Olajuwon and
Ewing in our conference.
Collectively they pose a better test of Boston's true strengths and
weaknesses viz a viz the West, as opposed to matchup concerns posed by 240
pounders like Camby, Ratliff and Jermaine O'Neil. Big picture-wise, who
frankly cares if Bat Girl is our best option against these gumby dolls, if
the starting centers out West tend to carry 40+ pounds more bulk? It's a
bit akin to how the NFC used to maul the crap out of the AFC in the Super
Bowl.
If Boston isn't one of the top eight teams in the East next year, this
wouldn't shock me. They are deeper and more talented but they seem to
remain fatally flawed in rebounding and shotblocking.
At the least I feel the Celts will be in the running a lot deeper into the
Spring than before, and probably won't stray as far below .500 ball as they
did in the past. In recent seasons, we'd make our runs at the playoffs
coming from 10 to 12 games under .500 by late-winter. That's tough to do no
matter how many 40 point games you get from Pierce or Walker.
Based on an interpretation of our won-lost patterns, the Celtics have been
relatively fast out of the gate due to overall superior conditioning and
summer participation (and the Pierce, Griffin rookie-of-the-month effect),
totally implode as veteran teams also got in shape and in synch and started
making a total mockery of the headless chicken outbreak system, then
finally make an entertaining late run for the 8th spot when it was already
too late.
I hope Harter and Obie will mesh well to bring out the strengths of both
their defensive philosophies, without burning out the players too quickly.
I personally like the headless chicken press after made baskets, especially
now that we may have 7 or 8 player depth in quality basketball players and
under Obie we no longer go 11 players deep for parts of games. A press can
just blow up any systematic effort to play zone defense.
What I didn't like are the constant half court traps that willfully ignore
matchups and take away individual accountability. I think Harter can get
Boston to play better individual, half-court defense.
p.s. On a half-serious note, Way predicted back in early July that we
should all watch out for Kedrick Brown's left knee. What was that all
about? Pretty irritating frankly if it was meant as a joke. Pretty scary
if it's true. I looked back at some of his posts and found the usual Way
stuff. I wonder if he's done yet "yawning" about Joe Johnson, for instance,
whom he also compared to former NBA journeyman Jerry Ice Reynolds for
reasons that aren't very clear.
- ---
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:04:18 +0200
From: "j.hironaka" <j.hironaka@unesco.org>
Subject: Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
At 21:11 02/08/01 -0700, you wrote:
>http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/sean_deveney/20010802.html
>Pierce is one of the few players in the NBA -- in all of sports, for that
>Matter -- who can legitimately claim he does not get enough respect. He is
>not the player Carter is, but he is not far behind. (.........) His
>presence gives the Celtics a clutch player and star to build around, a
>role that never quite suited Boston's other star, Antoine Walker. As
>talented as Walker has been during the early part of his career, he has
>not been very likable, on the floor or off. He has matured, but still,
>he's better off playing a secondary role behind the more affable Pierce.
As silly as it might seem for a nationally syndicated expert to use this
type of reasoning ("Walker has matured but because Pierce is more affable,
he deserves the leading role") it really has a curious resonance even in
Boston. I imagine a lot of people--including Sean Deveney's editor
obviously--read straight through this line of reasoning without noting
anything particularly odd about how the argument is phrased.
There are powerful arguments for making Paul Pierce the go to guy in
Boston, if he isn't already. But (obviously) I can't imagine how
"likeability" would ever be used as one of these arguments, even if it may
be in the back of our minds as fans.
I do feel that many observers assume Walker is disliked by teammates and
foes alike, when the available evidence goes overwhelmingly against this
notion.
And when comparing Walker's national reputation to his contributions both
on and off the court, as wacky as it may sounds it is he who by the
strictest definition ranks as the most "underrated" player in the NBA.
Walker led all NBA forwards in assists, steals and triple doubles last year
at the age of 24, which is uncommon for a player who has also led his team
in rebounds every year since entering the league. And wasn't it TSN that
just named Walker as one of the most giving athletes in sports for his
"Real Deal" and "8 Foundation"?
Someday a national sportswriter will go against the grain and try to
redress the out-of-date and unsettling character assassinations made
against Walker. No doubt the Boston Celtics will have to begin winning
first, before any beautification begins. Fair enough.
****
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 08:09:24 -0400
From: Jim Metz <JBMetzEA@AOL.com>
Subject: Re: The Truth Hurts
on 8/2/01 11:41 PM, Celtic4Hire@AOL.com at Celtic4Hire@AOL.com wrote:
I am more optimistic this year than ever. I am not
wringing my hands at how other teams in our conference have improved. People
don't give us any credit for the pickup of the 3 rookies but I feel the top
2
will contribute immensely this year. As for the negativism of certain
columists and members of this list, some people feel it necessary to take
the
contrarion because at times, it makes them seem more intelligent to not be a
"homer". However, when people are consistantly negative even when it is
obvious that things have improved, their true colors or agenda comes
through...
DJessen33
**************
C'mon DJ, haven't we been through this before ? I was on the other side
of the fence, an "incurable Homer" who has annualy been at the top of the
list, in the annual predictions of Celtic wins. Didn't you chaffe when the
"FOM" started catorgorizing posters, as if there was some pro-Pitino
conspiracy?
Let's dissagree, without suggesting an "agenda."
Like you, I see the plan as a long range one, develop the rookies and
wait for the time when we are under the cap to go get the missing pieces.
My complaint is that the management team seems just the opposite of
Pitino, who may have been too impatient. A few minor moves, a bit of
creativity with the draft, and we could have had it both ways.
I admit, I loved Pitino's style. If there was a big hole at point guard
or center, go after the best available. Potapenko and Anderson were big
upgrades over what we had. The mystery to me (and Rick also, I'll bet) is
why it did not improve the won lost record. I don't like to sit in stink and
wait for the wind to blow.
- -JB-
Unchain My Heart!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 08:09:25 -0400
From: Jim Metz <JBMetzEA@AOL.com>
Subject: Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
on 8/3/01 7:04 AM, j.hironaka at j.hironaka@unesco.org wrote:
There are powerful arguments for making Paul Pierce the go to guy in
Boston, if he isn't already. But (obviously) I can't imagine how
"likeability" would ever be used as one of these arguments, even if it may
be in the back of our minds as fans.
I do feel that many observers assume Walker is disliked by teammates and
foes alike, when the available evidence goes overwhelmingly against this
notion.
**************
Joe; you make a very good point here, but there might be an exception.
I'm not sure the author ever considered it, but the "likeability" factor
in a teams "go-to" player, might translate into more trips to the foul line.
I don't care if his opponents hate him, or even the fans, but the Zebras
have hurt his game, more than those booing fans, or the opponents who resent
his bravado.
If he got half of the calls, going to the basket, that Iverson, Shaq,
Allen, Stackhouse or even Pierce, he might be a devastating inside threat
and a real factor at the ends of quarters and games.
What I'm thinking, is he might not have found the need to abandon that
part of his game, which was his bread and butter for his first 2 1/2 years
in the league. In fact, rather than work on his outside shooting, he might
have put that time and energy into developing more of those up and under and
spin hooks that he used to throw down, until the double teams with the
swarming, hacking defenders, took it away from him
- -JB-
Unchain My Heart!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:32:08 -0400
From: "James A. Hill" <jahill@leasingservice.com>
Subject: Re: The Truth Hurts
I don't see any big surprises here. Any team that wants to win it all has
to go through the Lakers for the foreseeable future.
Mostly I'm surprised that a big name FA or two hasn't joined them for
"short" money to get a ring.
Having said that I think Motumbo can be beat in the east, Mourning is more
dangerous, and in another year or so with JJ and KB growing up I expect us
to be in the mix in the East.
Walker will continue to be the question mark IMO. He needs to "want" to
play PF and rebound the hard ones ALL THE TIME. If he continues to play the
wing at PF I don't think the team will have a chance in a playoff game.
<Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:32:37 -0400
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
Subject: Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
Joe H. wrote:
And when comparing Walker's national reputation to his contributions both
on and off the court, as wacky as it may sounds it is he who by the
strictest definition ranks as the most "underrated" player in the NBA.
Walker led all NBA forwards in assists, steals and triple doubles last year
at the age of 24, which is uncommon for a player who has also led his team
in rebounds every year since entering the league.
- ---end---
I really don't want to get into another Antoine debate, but here goes... I
agree, Joe, that Walker's reputation as a punk/jerk/cancer is mostly
undeserved, but he brings it on himself with the trash-talking (maybe the
worst in the league), wiggle (he does it less, but he still does it, and it
fosters a certain perception-fair or not) and constant arguments with
officials. I can't muster much sympathy for him when the power to change his
image rests in his willingness to give up or at least tone down these
behaviors. It's up to Antoine, and it hasn't been important enough to him to
make a real change yet.
More importantly, however, is the stats argument. Antoine supporters throw
out the stats, and they're good... 20 ppg, leads the team in rebounds and
assists, etc. But they only throw out the good stats. What about the 41
percent shooting for a power forward? The complete and utter inability
(unwillingness) to play physically and get to the free throw line? The
continued reliance on the 3-point shot when he only this season shot even a
semi-respectable percentage and when he knows those shots take the team's
best rebounder out of rebounding position? The assists? Antoine dominates
the ball, by demand. He hasn't gotten along with any of the Celtics'
admittedly below-average point guards during his career, probably because
Antoine's idea of offense seems to be to give him the ball at half-court and
let him either shoot a 3 or drive to the basket. In short, the numbers are
deceiving, and worse yet, you get the feeling that Antoine is satisfied with
the numbers. Antoine clearly would be a more effective player and make the
Celtics a better team if he took your advice and scored an efficient 18
points per game while dominating the boards and creating offense for
teammates, but we all know he never will accept that kind of role. Isn't
that selfish? I certainly think so.
Does he want to win? No question, he plays hard (especially when he has the
ball in his hands). But has he ever shown the dedication to prepare to win?
Or adjust his game to win? How many times has he come in out of shape? Has
he ever worked on building up his body? There's more to it than just showing
up on game night and playing hard. Offensively, he is so glaringly
inefficient, and yet he never has made a concession to that by scaling down
his shot attempts to get others better shots. You combine his 41 percent
shooting and truly pathetic free throw attempt numbers (and pedestrian at
best FT percentage), and Antoine clearly is the most offensively inefficient
power forward in the NBA. And his defense? He's the worst PF defender in the
league. He could compensate for his natural size disadvantage by running the
floor, but he is routinely beaten down the floor in offensive and defensive
transition by bigger, slower opponents.
Bottom line? I think Antoine is a player who absolutely loves to play
basketball, has considerable overall abilities, but hasn't a clue about how
to play smart basketball. By all accounts, he plays pickup games all summer
long and has to be chased away from the gym. But he plays the real games
like pickup games, too. In those pickup games, nobody cares about the shots
you miss, or how many points the guy you're guarding scores. But those
things count.
Antoine's supporters love to talk about how young he is. Let's drop that
argument once and for all. He's entering his sixth season in the league. He
is what he is. Is he a bad player? Of course not. And if you're satisfied
with what you got from Antoine Walker last year, then that's fine. But don't
expect him to suddenly become Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber. It's not going
to happen at this point.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:38:53 -0500
From: "Gene Kirkpatrick" <gkir@tjc.tyler.cc.tx.us>
Subject: It's half-full guys
Wow! What excellent posts on the short-term prospects. Keep it coming. I
see us being much better and hope that means ten more victories; who knows
how better attitude, teamwork, conditioning, etc. will affect the W-L
columns?
My take is that the sophs will help more than last year: Palacio, who
should get at least 20 minutes a game and Blount, likewise about 20 min.,
are much more confident and ready to play--plus, they won't look to shoot
that much. I also, for no logical reason, think Moiso will begin to
contribute, if even in a sideways manner. Sort of like my wife contributing
in the kitchen when she microwaves her own dinner! (Just kidding, honey).
Moiso has tools and I think he won't hurt us when he's in there. Given 40
games with 10-15 minutes he might begin to learn the game. I would try it
rather than let him languish on the bench. Really, why play EW (as AW's
backup) when Moiso might develop into something special? So, we have three
sophomores, all of whom should be better contributors.
We also have three rooks who should contribute. I began to watch the Shaw's
game again after letting it rest for two weeks. JJ is certainly no less
than what we've been saying. Notice how he moves with the dribble at half
speed, feinting into the lane and pulling back for a jumper. I suspect he
can get a good look any time he needs to, especially as a 6'8" two guard.
Plus, he is an excellent defender. This kid is worth getting the dish for,
if you don't have one.
KB moves like Karl Lewis on the track, like Jim Brown on the turf, like Anna
Kournikova on the court (oh, well, it should encourage you young guys that
someone in his late fifties still has an eye for talent). Back to KB. His
athleticism is all the more effective, I think, because he controls it. He
doesn't leap tall buildings on every play; and he doesn't make all his
shots, but he does show excellent form and ability to get the short jumper
off. He can play two or three with ease because of his muscle and leaping
ability. Any combo of KB and JJ plus Palacio or Forte when AW or PP are
resting gives us excellent defense with mobility out the kazoo and real fire
power. Am I pumped or what!
And Forte. If he contributes a little (say 6 points plus whatever on the
floor), it will make a big difference.
Did you see that Antoine and Pierce are working out together? What more
evidence do we need that our go-to guys are ready to make this team
successful? The others--Battie, VP, and Kenny--are important, but I'm tired
now. I think we will be very good and I put us alongside Milwaukee and
Charlotte. They're no better. We're too complimentary of those guys and
Orlando and NY and Miami. We'll beat the whole lot.
Well, back to Europeantennisbabes.com
Cheers, Gene
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:02:51 -0400
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
Subject: Re: It's half-full guys...
Gene, you know I don't really agree with you, but I love your optimism. I
hope you're right... and I do think the future is bright.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:11:35 -0400
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
Subject: Another move the Celtics aren't making...
Let me first say, that there's still plenty of time before the season starts
for the Celtics to make a couple of moves. Maybe they'll surprise me...
Anyway, Milwaukee is working on a sign-and-trade for Anthony Mason, and
they're only giving up Scott Williams and Darvin Ham, apparently. It's
either going to be a two-way or three-way deal (Cleveland would be in on the
three-way, offering Chris Gatling). Indiana may be offering Travis Best for
Mason.
Wouldn't Anthony Mason be a great fit with the Celtics? He's a rebounder,
great low-post defender, and efficient offensive player. He's a veteran and
has played on a lot of good teams. The Heat are willing to work a
sign-and-trade, so teams are giving up as much salary as they're adding-no
luxury tax implications. Wouldn't Vitaly and Randy Brown be a pretty
attractive package for Miami?
Mason, Olajuwon, Grant, Ewing, Haywood... a lot of guys who could have been
had relatively cheap with no real long-term downside, and any one of them
would have helped this team in the short-term. These are the things that
frustrate me. It's great to plan for the future, but you can improve the
present at the same time.
Mark
P.S. How good will Milwaukee be with Cassell, Allen, Big Dog, Mason and
Ervin Johnson, and Tim Thomas off the bench? Wow.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:43:12 -0400
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
Subject: Why not Marc Jackson?
He's kind of a forgotten man, but this guy is available for something around
the mid-level exception. As a starter, in 35 games, he averaged 16.5 points
and 9.5 rebounds on 47 percent shooting (80 percent FT). He's 6-10 and 270
pounds. Again, he's an improvement and he's very available for a reasonable
price. This guy's no Todd MacCullough.
Check out these numbers from Dec. 9, when he moved into the lineup due to
injuries to others, to Feb. 15, his last game before going down with an
injury (I think he played with an injury for a while, but I couldn't confirm
that):
Pts/Rebs
20/6
27/7
15/10
26/10
31/10
14/13
13/13
4/6
20/14
18/6
22/12
15/12
29/7
10/6
22/9
25/13
16/10
6/11
20/16
13/5
15/4
17/13
18/11
13/8
27/12
10/6
16/13
6/14
14/8
18/13
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:53:10 -0500
From: "Gene Kirkpatrick" <gkir@tjc.tyler.cc.tx.us>
Subject: agreed on the Bucks, but
I see your point, Mark. The Bucks can add a lot by adding Mason. And I
like their team and coach a lot. But I think we're there with them. And
while I harbor trade fantasies that ship Antoine for Jason Kidd or Antonio
McDyess or even Stromile Swift (yes, I think we could have had A. Jamison a
year ago, when he was struggling and I expect Swift to be a great
rebounder/shot-blocker #4, just what we need), still I think our team will
compare favorably with the Bucks this year. Wait til you see the Truth this
season!
Now, for all his contributions and potential, I still see Antoine as the
player who, if he doesn't get it together as team leader and all round
contributor THIS SEASON, I would look to trade for a two dimensional player
who will give us those two dimensions regularly. With PP and JJ and others
able to score now, we need the rebounding and low post scoring that AW can
contribute. His 3 point contributions are only duplications at this point;
we need his PF abilities, not SF abilities. Otherwise, we should trade for
a real PF. I don't really care that he can pass and dribble, except as that
comes from the inside game. A defensive rebounder who has a decent jumper
would contribute more to us now that we have more scorers. Add a
distributor point to that and we're right there with Philly.
Still, I'm hoping that by adding JJ and Kedrick, we can force AW into
contributing what we need. Heck, I still have a decent left-handed hook,
but my family needs groceries and yard-work and so that's what I give them.
Russ could have scored 35 a game, but he chose to give the old Celts what
they needed, thus becoming the best team player (and player, I think) ever.
Cheers, Gene (I've checked the archives and find no record of my hook shot
on film--sorry)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:09:23 -0400
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
Subject: Re: agreed on the Bucks, but
Agree with your take on Antoine, Gene, and with the importance of Antoine
giving the team what it needs this year. I don't see it ever happening, but
I agree with you that it needs to happen. I also agree that if it doesn't
happen this year, you move Antoine for that frontcourt stud we need.
I don't agree on our comparison with the Bucks. The Bucks were a game away
from the Finals, and they may add a 15 ppg/9 rpg power forward without
disturbing their nucleus. We're nowhere near them-yet.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 11:50:56 -0500
From: "Gene Kirkpatrick" <gkir@tjc.tyler.cc.tx.us>
Subject: yes on Marc Jackson
this is a guy wholly out of my radar screen; I wouldn't know him from George
Kournikova, but he certainly sounds good and we need a PF who will play PF.
If he would play instead of Battie at PF, then I'd be interested. Blount,
Jackson and Walker form a good rebounding line, add Pierce and whomever and
it's an interesting group. I assume he's a free agent, but if we need to
sign and trade to get him, I would go for it. Gene
------------------------------
Date: 03 Aug 2001 12:59:54 EDT
From: Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)
Subject: Re: Why not Marc Jackson?
- --- You wrote:
He's kind of a forgotten man, but this guy is available for something around
the mid-level exception. As a starter, in 35 games, he averaged 16.5 points
and 9.5 rebounds on 47 percent shooting (80 percent FT). He's 6-10 and 270
pounds. Again, he's an improvement and he's very available for a reasonable
price.
- --- end of quote ---
I thought he was staying with GSW, they loved him so much?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:01:58 -0400
From: Alexander Wang <awang@MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
I agree with the part where you say that Antoine is not going to become
Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber. But there's a lot of room between those
all-NBA superstars and the shoddy basketball player you describe in your
post.
At 10:32 AM 8/3/01, Berry, Mark S wrote:
>What about the 41
>percent shooting for a power forward? The complete and utter inability
>(unwillingness) to play physically and get to the free throw line? The
>continued reliance on the 3-point shot when he only this season shot even a
>semi-respectable percentage and when he knows those shots take the team's
>best rebounder out of rebounding position? The assists? Antoine dominates
>the ball, by demand. He hasn't gotten along with any of the Celtics'
>admittedly below-average point guards during his career, probably because
>Antoine's idea of offense seems to be to give him the ball at half-court
and
>let him either shoot a 3 or drive to the basket. In short, the numbers are
>deceiving, and worse yet, you get the feeling that Antoine is satisfied
with
>the numbers.
I agree that the numbers are deceiving, but I have a different
interpretation on most of them. A key principle of stats are that they're
not scalable. If someone shoots 50% FG and scores 5 ppg, that doesn't mean
you can give him six times the shots and he'll be a 50% FG shooter with 30
ppg. More likely he won't even be able to get that many shots off, and his
FG% will drop close to zero if he really has to take the shots. I've read
arguments about how Iverson doesn't help his team because of his poor FG%
and they're missing this key point.
It's also important to separate 2 pt FG% from 3 pt FG%. Antoine shot 44%
from 2 pt range, which isn't stellar but is a lot better than 41%. Let's
use this number from now on when we complain about his offensive
inefficiency.
Finally you have to take into account the context of the team around the
player. A little known fact is that Antoine shot 47% from 2 pt range in the
1999-2000 season, because he butchered his overall percentage with poor 3
pt shooting that year. How come he shot that well? I actually think that
the explanation is Kenny Anderson. Two reasons: First, as annoying as
Kenny's point guard play is, he's the only PG on our team that actually has
any court vision. Some of those 5 apg that he had were nice passes to
Antoine that gave him very high percentage shots. Second, Kenny can
actually score a bit, which meant that Antoine didn't have the burden of
trying to score 23 ppg.
1. Reliance on the 3 pt shot: Antoine shoots a good percentage, period.
Shooting 33% from 3 pt range gives you one point a shot, shooting 50% from
2 pt range gives you one point a shot. There are side effects that you
mention and I agree with: he doesn't get to the line shooting 3's. He's not
in position to rebound offensively. On the other hand, he needs to shoot
the 3 to protect Pierce down low.
And 37% is a high enough percentage to justify a lot of side effects. The
fact that he can get off as many 3 pointers as he can at that percentage is
a positive, not a negative. Reggie Miller actually shot the same percentage
as Antoine. Is it because Miller's accuracy is the same? No, the reason is
because Miller has to scratch and claw to get every attempt. He'd love to
get more attempts at the same percentage. The reason teams don't shoot more
3 pointers given their higher percentage is due to scaling effects: they
won't be getting high percentage opportunities.
One negative side effect in general about shooting tons of 3's is that they
are higher variance shots (in the technical sense of the probability
distribution of points). Bad teams want higher variance, good teams don't.
We're going to want to reduce our volume of 3's once we're better than a
.500 team but until then, bombs away.
2. His low 2 pt percentage: As I noted above, he shot a decent percentage
when he actually had a healthy Kenny for a whole season. I'm not saying
"give Kenny an extension" here. But his low percentage is at least
partially explained by having to initiative the offense. He's rarely on the
receiving end of a good assist. And there's the fact that he's surrounded
by a bunch of offensive incompetents (everyone but Pierce) so that if he
and Pierce don't combined for 45 points, the team probably loses. Of
course, this team-induced ballhogging probably fits his somewhat selfish
personality well.
Now, hopefully with the addition of some credible offensive talent in Joe
Johnson and maybe Kedrick Brown, and the return of Kenny Anderson (maybe),
Antoine can cut down his bad shots, receive some assists, and shoot a
higher percentage - maybe even higher than the 47% from 99-00.
3. His assists: you can't just disregard them because he was the primary
initiator of the offense. Just because someone fills a role where certain
production is expected doesn't mean it's not valuable. If he takes over
this role, he allows us to play someone at PG that doesn't fit this
traditional role. For instance, you can play $1.4M point guard Milt Palacio
who gives you decent defense because he doesn't have this pressure on him.
Again, I'm hoping that we get a real point guard some point down the line
but his passing and ballhandling is valuable nonetheless.
Now, I agree with much of the rest. His lack of commitment to All-Star
conditioning is frustrating. His defense is a definite liability for our
team.
I don't know if there's clear evidence that he's satisfied with his game,
like you seem to perceive. We haven't heard much this offseason about his
work with Tim Grover since that initial mention, which makes me really
curious. And he has made gains in various areas in recent seasons.
Much of his play last season was dictated by team needs - the additional
scoring, the assists, 3 point shooting. My hope is that with the
composition of the team changing - Joe Johnson, perhaps the return of Kenny
Anderson - that his game will improve in the direction that we all seem to
agree on: fewer forced shots, higher percentage inside offensive play that
gets him to the free throw line, more offensive rebounding, creating for
his teammates but not as the primary distributor. I still think he's going
to be shooting a lot of 3's because Pierce is going to need a spread
offense even more than before if he's going to work inside with the zone
defense.
Alex
------------------------------
Date: 03 Aug 2001 13:03:13 EDT
From: Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)
Subject: Re: The Truth Hurts
- --- You wrote:
Mostly I'm surprised that a big name FA or two hasn't joined them for
"short" money to get a ring.
- --- end of quote ---
Mitch Richmond? Unless you don't consider him a 'big name'. I think he can
still do it, especially on the Lakers.
------------------------------
Date: 03 Aug 2001 13:08:50 EDT
From: Kestutis.Kveraga@dartmouth.edu (Kestutis Kveraga)
Subject: Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
- --- "Berry, Mark S" wrote:
The complete and utter inability
(unwillingness) to play physically and get to the free throw line?
- --- end of quote ---
To be fair, I think he tries, but is either overmatched in the low post, or
fouled, with few of the fouls called. So, naturally, he's discouraged from
going to the hole. We all know how tempting it is to throw up a jumpshot
when a
bigger, taller opponent is waiting for you down low. He does get some tough
rebounds, though, so he's no Travis Knight.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 13:37:12 -0400
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
Subject: RE: Sporting news article on Pierce
First of all, I'm not saying Antoine is a shoddy basketball player. I'm
saying that he's not as good-especially in his role on this team-as many on
the list think he is. I'll give you an example-Antawn Jamison put up numbers
somewhat similar to Antoine's last year (24 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 44 percent
shooting), but I don't think Golden State considers the guy the foundation
for a championship team. He's a nice player on a bad team. I think you can
say the same thing about Antoine. I don't think it's a coincidence that both
players are considered 'tweeners.
As for the 3-pointer, the Reggie Miller comparison, etc. We're probably just
going to have to disagree here, but a few points... The important difference
between Miller and Antoine is the fact that Miller is a shooting guard and
one of the best 3-point shooters in NBA history. Antoine is a power forward
and an average 3-point shooter. Like it or not, there are certain roles a
power forward simply has to play-especially a power forward playing
alongside centers named Battie, Potapenko and Blount. That PF has to rebound
and he absolutely has to get some high-percentage offense. Antoine had one
season with a decent two-point shooting percentage. That's it. And you can't
just throw out that 3-point percentage when talking about his overall field
goal percentage. IF he averaged three three-pointers a game, maybe... but he
averaged close to 10 a game in the second half of the season. As for the
argument that he has to shoot 3-pointers to protect Pierce, who posts up...
come on, Alex. The 1980s Celtics were one of the great post-up teams of all
time and that team rarely attempted as many 3-pointers as a team as Antoine
does alone. There are so many holes in this argument... As for 33 percent
being as good as 50 percent... it's simply not true. The points work out the
same in theory, but that means two out of every three trips, your opponent
is getting a rebound and fast break opportunity. Also, you're not getting to
the line when you fire away 3-pointers, so you're definitely going to score
more "hidden" points when shooting those two-pointers. So shooting 33
percent on threes is not the same as shooting 50 percent on twos.
The idea that simply being able to get the shots off excuses the low
percentage... the great players do both. Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, McGrady... even
Vince and Pierce, who are a notch below. Iverson probably is the one
exception, and I'd say that's a pretty unique case. That team was built
around a 6-0 shooting guard who shoots 41 percent, yet somehow they won.
How? Lots of big bodies on the front line to rebound his misses (the Celtics
don't have that), good defense to keep the opponent close when he struggles
(the Celtics don't have that), and necessity-they don't have another scorer
(the Celtics do, one of the best in the league). Plus, Iverson attacks the
basket and gets to the line, so his 41 percent is a little stronger than
Antoine's 41 percent.
You say Kenny got Antoine some easy shots... maybe a few, but be honest.
Antoine isn't a guy who relies on others to set him up offensively. He takes
the ball at the 3-point line, shoots, drives or posts up. He's not slashing
to the basket waiting for the pass. He's a one-on-one guy. But your point
about Kenny is right in that at least Kenny was handling the ball and
initiating the offense. Toine at least occasionally started the offensive
set in the post, and certainly had more offensive rebound opportunities
(which lead to high-percentage shots).
Anyway, Alex, I'm not sure we'll ever agree. Plenty of people on this list
look at Antoine's 20 points, 8 rebounds and 5 assists and say that's all
that matters. I don't believe that. I watch the games, and Antoine can have
some of the ugliest "good games" (stat-wise) of any player in the NBA. It's
about more than stats. That's why you can look at the stats for Walker,
Garnett and Jamison and wonder what the difference is. Watch the games and
you know.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Wang [mailto:awang@MIT.EDU]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 1:02 PM
To: Berry, Mark S; 'j.hironaka@unesco.org'; 'celtics@igtc.com'
Subject: Re: Sporting news article on Pierce
I agree with the part where you say that Antoine is not going to become
Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber. But there's a lot of room between those
all-NBA superstars and the shoddy basketball player you describe in your
post.
At 10:32 AM 8/3/01, Berry, Mark S wrote:
>What about the 41
>percent shooting for a power forward? The complete and utter inability
>(unwillingness) to play physically and get to the free throw line? The
>continued reliance on the 3-point shot when he only this season shot even a
>semi-respectable percentage and when he knows those shots take the team's
>best rebounder out of rebounding position? The assists? Antoine dominates
>the ball, by demand. He hasn't gotten along with any of the Celtics'
>admittedly below-average point guards during his career, probably because
>Antoine's idea of offense seems to be to give him the ball at half-court
and
>let him either shoot a 3 or drive to the basket. In short, the numbers are
>deceiving, and worse yet, you get the feeling that Antoine is satisfied
with
>the numbers.
I agree that the numbers are deceiving, but I have a different
interpretation on most of them. A key principle of stats are that they're
not scalable. If someone shoots 50% FG and scores 5 ppg, that doesn't mean
you can give him six times the shots and he'll be a 50% FG shooter with 30
ppg. More likely he won't even be able to get that many shots off, and his
FG% will drop close to zero if he really has to take the shots. I've read
arguments about how Iverson doesn't help his team because of his poor FG%
and they're missing this key point.
It's also important to separate 2 pt FG% from 3 pt FG%. Antoine shot 44%
from 2 pt range, which isn't stellar but is a lot better than 41%. Let's
use this number from now on when we complain about his offensive
inefficiency.
Finally you have to take into account the context of the team around the
player. A little known fact is that Antoine shot 47% from 2 pt range in the
1999-2000 season, because he butchered his overall percentage with poor 3
pt shooting that year. How come he shot that well? I actually think that
the explanation is Kenny Anderson. Two reasons: First, as annoying as
Kenny's point guard play is, he's the only PG on our team that actually has
any court vision. Some of those 5 apg that he had were nice passes to
Antoine that gave him very high percentage shots. Second, Kenny can
actually score a bit, which meant that Antoine didn't have the burden of
trying to score 23 ppg.
1. Reliance on the 3 pt shot: Antoine shoots a good percentage, period.
Shooting 33% from 3 pt range gives you one point a shot, shooting 50% from
2 pt range gives you one point a shot. There are side effects that you
mention and I agree with: he doesn't get to the line shooting 3's. He's not
in position to rebound offensively. On the other hand, he needs to shoot
the 3 to protect Pierce down low.
And 37% is a high enough percentage to justify a lot of side effects. The
fact that he can get off as many 3 pointers as he can at that percentage is
a positive, not a negative. Reggie Miller actually shot the same percentage
as Antoine. Is it because Miller's accuracy is the same? No, the reason is
because Miller has to scratch and claw to get every attempt. He'd love to
get more attempts at the same percentage. The reason teams don't shoot more
3 pointers given their higher percentage is due to scaling effects: they
won't be getting high percentage opportunities.
One negative side effect in general about shooting tons of 3's is that they
are higher variance shots (in the technical sense of the probability
distribution of points). Bad teams want higher variance, good teams don't.
We're going to want to reduce our volume of 3's once we're better than a
.500 team but until then, bombs away.
2. His low 2 pt percentage: As I noted above, he shot a decent percentage
when he actually had a healthy Kenny for a whole season. I'm not saying
"give Kenny an extension" here. But his low percentage is at least
partially explained by having to initiative the offense. He's rarely on the
receiving end of a good assist. And there's the fact that he's surrounded
by a bunch of offensive incompetents (everyone but Pierce) so that if he
and Pierce don't combined for 45 points, the team probably loses. Of
course, this team-induced ballhogging probably fits his somewhat selfish
personality well.
Now, hopefully with the addition of some credible offensive talent in Joe
Johnson and maybe Kedrick Brown, and the return of Kenny Anderson (maybe),
Antoine can cut down his bad shots, receive some assists, and shoot a
higher percentage - maybe even higher than the 47% from 99-00.
3. His assists: you can't just disregard them because he was the primary
initiator of the offense. Just because someone fills a role where certain
production is expected doesn't mean it's not valuable. If he takes over
this role, he allows us to play someone at PG that doesn't fit this
traditional role. For instance, you can play $1.4M point guard Milt Palacio
who gives you decent defense because he doesn't have this pressure on him.
Again, I'm hoping that we get a real point guard some point down the line
but his passing and ballhandling is valuable nonetheless.
Now, I agree with much of the rest. His lack of commitment to All-Star
conditioning is frustrating. His defense is a definite liability for our
team.
I don't know if there's clear evidence that he's satisfied with his game,
like you seem to perceive. We haven't heard much this offseason about his
work with Tim Grover since that initial mention, which makes me really
curious. And he has made gains in various areas in recent seasons.
Much of his play last season was dictated by team needs - the additional
scoring, the assists, 3 point shooting. My hope is that with the
composition of the team changing - Joe Johnson, perhaps the return of Kenny
Anderson - that his game will improve in the direction that we all seem to
agree on: fewer forced shots, higher percentage inside offensive play that
gets him to the free throw line, more offensive rebounding, creating for
his teammates but not as the primary distributor. I still think he's going
to be shooting a lot of 3's because Pierce is going to need a spread
offense even more than before if he's going to work inside with the zone
defense.
Alex
------------------------------
End of The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V8 #275
*****************************************************
To unsubscribe to The Boston Celtics Digest, send mail to majordomo@igtc.com
with the following in the body of the message:
unsubscribe celtics-digest
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead of the digest, send the mail to majordomo@igtc.com
with the follwing lines in the body of the message:
unsubscribe celtics-digest
subscribe celtics
Archives are available in two formats:
Hypermail at http://www.igtc.com/archives/celtics/
Anonymous FTP at ftp://ftp.igtc.com/pub/pmm/celtics