Re: thinking it through

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Josh, with all due respect, you can't be serious when you say the Nets
aren't the better team. The facts just don't support it. Maybe you just over
analyzed to the point of blurring the facts. Even prior to the trades they
had the edge. If you can sell this to the list you can sell anything.

DanF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Josh Ozersky" <jozersky1@nyc.rr.com>
To: "celtics list" <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 10:44 PM
Subject: thinking it through


> here's my column from hoopsworld...not much
> by way of news (other than CW confirming an
> interest in Tim Hardaway), but I've thought a lot
> about the Nets, and try to make the case that they're
> not that great, even with their new additions.
>
> Josh
>
> The Verdict
>
> The Celtic Fan -- attended by nurses, sitting bolt-upright in
> bed, flushed and anxious -- could use a little bit of good news now.
> Some encouraging word. Some optimism, in what is surely the lowest
> moment of the offseason. I don't know if I can offer it. But I will try.
>
> First, let's state the obvious. Losing Rodney Rogers to the Nets is a
> serious blow. What's worse is the reason why: we lost him because a
> very rich man wanted to save money. It hurts badly, and it will hurt us
> on the court next year, without a doubt. Don't kid yourself: the Nets
> are a much stronger team now than they were before they added
> Mutumbo and Rogers. They are much tougher and more physical; they
> will rebound more and fast break more; and their defense will be much
> better too. Who would you rather have to score against -- the plodding
> McCulloch and the willowy, womanish Van Horn, or the man-eating
> Mumumbo, and Rogers, with his herculean frame? I would take the first
> two, and so did the Celtics, no matter what the matchup was. That won't
> happen any more. No, there's no denying that Gaston's cupidity has
> helped the Nets odds, should we have to get by them.
>
> But the good news is: they are still not the better team.
> Let's look on both sides of the court, starting with offense.
>
> I am a big believer in difference-making players. Players that demand
> double teams; players who can create their own shot. We have two
> players like that, and the Nets have one. You need role players to keep
> defenses honest, but in the playoffs, you basically try to keep it close,
> and then let your stars decide the matter. In any event, that is what
> usually happens. Though Jason Kidd is a one-man wrecking crew, and
> an MVP-type talent, he really doesn't have any help. Mutumbo is actually
> worse than Todd McCulloch on offense, and Rodney, despite his great
> size and athleticism, isn't really that effective except as a spot-up
shooter.
> He knows how to play, and will fill lanes and post up smaller players. But
> his role is basically the same as Dana Barros. Van Horn gave them a good
> three point shooter too. What the Nets really needed was another quick
> scoring guard who could create his own shot. Kittles, Harris, Martin,
> Jefferson
> -- all the Nets' good players are basically opportunistic scorers, who
might
> make a big shot now and again, but can't be depended on to make anything
> happen.
>
> That matters a lot, particularly in a short series, whether with us or
> somebody
> else: and the Nets just barely made it past a short-handed Charlotte team,
you
> may
> remember. The last thing they are is some kind of 800 pound gorilla, as
some
> fans
> have said. There is only one 800 pound gorilla in the NBA, and we all know
who
> that is.
>
> On defense, the Nets have improved, but there are still some questions.
The
> strategy that worked against Mutumbo last year, of drawing him out with
> quick, jumpshooting big men, should work fairly well this year as well. It
> doesn't matter if they put in Rogers; he can't defend anybody out on the
> perimeter either. (It's always on defense that tweeners hurt you.) As I
> remember,
> even Vin Baker, whom one would think of as the Celtic most likely to be
shut
> down by Mutumbo, can shoot from 20 feet out. Antoine will likely eat a few
> shots when he beats his man inside, and finds the Ancient One there
waiting
> for him. We can live with that. But they still don't have anyone to defend
him
> on the perimeter, and they can't match up Pierce anywhere.
>
> That's what I mean about difference makers. They are going to have to keep
> throwing double teams at Pierce, who should get at least a little respect
from
> the Referees next year. (The Nets manhandled him shamelessly last year;
that
> was a big part of why he was so frazzled and worn out.) They have one
major
> advantage in Jason Kidd's ability to turn over the inexperienced Celtics
> guards,
> even if they do go out and sign a veteran to play 25 minutes a game. But I
> still
> don't think they have an answer for our tag team. If they keep
double-teaming
> Paul and Antoine, a lot of guys are going to get open shots.
>
> Celtics Offense
> Despite their no-name status and limited floor skills, I think you are
going
> to
> see a much more efficient offense with J.R. Bremer, Shammond Williams,
Tony
> Delk, and Vin Baker than you did with Kenny Anderson, Erick Strickland,
and
> Rodney Rogers. Rogers is probably a more dependable spot-up threat than
> Baker; but Kenny absolutely killed us with his spotty mid-range shooting,
and
> Stickland just doesn't have the touch, for all his grit and effort. If you
> take a
> good shooter and give him the ball by himself, he's going to shoot in the
> mid-
> thirties or higher. Rogers created some matchup problems for us, but in
fact,
> everybody is a matchup problem if they are undefended. The key will be how
> Baker and our guards do in mid-range.
>
> But all this presumes the same offense as last year. And that is not a
safe
> presumption at all. More likely, our offense will look dramatically
different.
> For the last ten years, people have been saying that the Celtics were
doomed
> to
> fail, "because they have no low-post threat." It wasn't strictly true,
because
> Eric
> Williams gave us a good weapon in the lane, when not over-used, and both
> Antoine and Vitaly could score down low as long as there were no
shotblockers
> present. But let's say that the conventional wisdom was right, as it
usually
> is.
> We now have a legitimate post threat, who (in theory, anyway) will cause
> defenses
> to collapse, giving Paul and Antoine much more room to operate. Moreover,
> having a good player stationed near the basket means (again, in theory)
that
> you will get some strong-side rebounds, and not just what happens to come
> near the quick hands of Pierce, Walker, and Battie. I for one can't
imagine
> what
> the Celtics offense will look like; but I have to think it will be much
more
> dangerous,
> even without the greater confidence and experience this past year has
afforded
> our two stars.
>
> And it's not like we were getting much in the way of smooth playmaking
before;
> people who think the Celtics will be hurt by the lack of a "true"
playmaker
> must
> have a pretty impoverished view of point guard play. Kenny ran a decent
pick
> and roll,
> and was an impeccable ball handler, even under pressure. But that's about
it.
> Meanwhile, the addition of Kedrick Brown and Shammond Williams into the
lineup
> means that we will have a much faster, more athletic bench than last
year --
> raising hopes
> that a fast-breaking second unit could somehow be developed.
>
> On Defense, Baker has to be considered at least a potentially improvement
over
> both Potapkeno and Rogers. Those two strongmen, with their earthbound,
> grappling style of defense, were more reminiscent of Nikolai Volkov and
the
> Iron Sheik than Parish and McHale; and while Baker probably won't be
making
> anybody's all-defensive team, he is big and athletic, and at one time knew
> how
>  to play low-post defense very effectively. The other players are
primarily
> defenders:
> McCarty, Brown, Williams, and even Tony Delk. The only guy who is a known
> sieve
>  is Williams, and maybe O'Brien's discipline, along with a sprinkling of
Dick
> Harter
> dust, may bring him around.
>
> But any way you break it down, the Nets have not improved the basic makeup
> of their team, and we have. The Nets will be better defensively, and much
> better
> at rebounding. But their offense isn't appreciably better, and who is to
say
> when
> the aged Mutumbo might finally break down -- not to wish injury on
anybody.
> The Celtics, meanwhile, have added a major component that was completely
> missing before, without really losing much. Rogers will help the Nets more
> than
>  his absence hurts us. It's entirely possible that Baker will fail to
produce,
> and
> bring down the team with him. But right now, I think the Atlantic
Division,
> anyway, is the Celtics' to lose.
>
> Help on the Way
>
> All of the foregoing augury, of course, ignores the fact that we still hav
a
> roster
> spot open. The Celtics know that somebody good is going to be available
for
> the
>  minimum wage; they are waiting it out to see who it is. We've already
read
> about
> several intriguing names: Travis Best, the brilliant, quicksilver combo
guard
> who
> played so well in the Finals a couple of years ago; Greg Anthony, one of
the
> elite
> defensive players in the league, and an able point; even the venerable
Mookie
> Blaylock, whom as late as 2000-2001 was one of the best all-around point
> guards
> in the league. And of course there is always the possibility of resigning
> Erick Strickland.
>
> But the most interesting possibility of all, to me anyway, was last week's
> exclusive
>  Hoopsworld rumor that the Celtics might be looking at Tim Hardaway, the
> tough-as-nails
> shooting/scoring combo guard who we all remember so fondly from his days
in
> Golden
> State and Miami. The former crossover king's skills have been in steep
> decline, but he
> just may have something in the tank as a reserve. He averaged 4 assists a
game
> for
> Dallas last year, and ten points a game, with 34% accuracy from behind the
> line. He
> hands are still quick, and he's a natural leader. Given his friendship
with
> Antoine Walker,
> it seems a natural. He's as game as Erick Strickland, and significantly
more
> talented on
> offense. Plus, you have to think it would be great to have a guy in the
locker
> room
> who says things like, "Antoine's an asshole. He knows it, and I know it"
to
> reporters.
>
> Chris Wallace has confirmed to me that Hardaway is one of the players the
team
> is
> looking at; but wouldn't go any further, saying that an actual signing
"could
> happen
> in a couple of days...or it could happen right before the season starts,"
as
> with Erick
> Strickland last year. Whatever happens, it seems a pretty sure bet that a
> talented
> ballplayer will be doing some distributing for us next year.