[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V9 #252
A lot of you may not like this, but I would love to see our inexperienced GM
make one more gutsy move. Trade Walker and E Williams to Chicago for J
Rose, Fizer and Crawford. This would leave us with a versatile and athletic
eight man rotation of Baker, Battie, Rose, Pierce and Crawford; with K
Brown, Fizer, and Delk the first three off the bench. Top this off with
Sundov, S Williams, McCarty and Bremer and I believe we have a solid twelve.
Chicago wants to get back into the thick of it. Walker is a native son, and
right now is probably at his peak in trade value. Boston loses an asset, but
gains a solid team for the next four years.
As I noted above, it would be gutsy because Walker is at his peak; but I
would love to watch that team play.
-----Original Message-----
From: Celtics-Digest-Owner@igtc.com
[mailto:Celtics-Digest-Owner@igtc.com]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:53 PM
To: Celtics-Digest@igtc.com
Subject: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V9 #252
The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest
Monday, August 19 2002 Volume 09 : Number 252
In this issue:
Formidable front line
Re: Formidable front line
Re: Formidable front line
Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V9 #251
Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V9 #251
RE: thinking it through
Re: Formidable front line
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 22:50:01 -0400
From: "DJB" <dajubo@earthlink.net>
Subject: Formidable front line
There's a lot of time spent commenting about what we don't have (Rodney
Rogers, a top point guard, etc.), but what about what the Cs do have? I
believe that the front line of Walker, Battie and Baker will be very
difficult to defend. I assume that Baker will play center, Battie will be a
power forward, which I believe he's better suited for, and Walker will
probably move to the small forward. How many centers in the East will be
able to deal with Baker? Ditto for Battie and any PF trying to guard him.
This may sound strange, but I believe that if Walker moves to the small
forward position, he'll probably utilize more of his inside game, as he'll
post up opposing small forwards (imagine someone like Spreewell or Grant
Hill trying to stop him down low).
- -David
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:50:39 -0400
From: "Dan Forant" <dforant1@nycap.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Formidable front line
What's your plan for substitutions???? I don't see Baker playing 40min. Fill
in the blanks for Baker, Battie and Walker.
DanF
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DJB" <dajubo@earthlink.net>
To: <Celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 10:50 PM
Subject: Formidable front line
> There's a lot of time spent commenting about what we don't have (Rodney
> Rogers, a top point guard, etc.), but what about what the Cs do have? I
> believe that the front line of Walker, Battie and Baker will be very
> difficult to defend. I assume that Baker will play center, Battie will be
a
> power forward, which I believe he's better suited for, and Walker will
> probably move to the small forward. How many centers in the East will be
> able to deal with Baker? Ditto for Battie and any PF trying to guard him.
> This may sound strange, but I believe that if Walker moves to the small
> forward position, he'll probably utilize more of his inside game, as he'll
> post up opposing small forwards (imagine someone like Spreewell or Grant
> Hill trying to stop him down low).
>
> -David
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 19:28:18 +0200
From: "hironaka@nomade.fr"<hironaka@nomade.fr>
Subject: Re: Formidable front line
> ---------- Initial message -----------
>I believe that the front line of Walker, Battie and
Baker will be very
> difficult to defend. I assume that Baker will play
center, Battie will be a
> power forward, which I believe he's better suited for,
and Walker will
> probably move to the small forward. How many centers in
the East will be
> able to deal with Baker? Ditto for Battie and any PF
trying to guard him.
> This may sound strange, but I believe that if Walker
moves to the small
> forward position, he'll probably utilize more of his
inside game, as he'll
> post up opposing small forwards (imagine someone like
Spreewell or Grant
> Hill trying to stop him down low).
>
> -David
>
Good points, but don't you think the issue is defense not
offense?
One of the rote observations about our Boston Celtics
last year vs. the season before is that the captains
finally "matured" and that Antoine, in particular,
started paying attention to "rebounding the ball
more/again".
In reality, as we all probably realize, Antoine averaged
fewer rebounds last season than before (both compared to
the previous seasons 8.9 and his career average).
He also slumped to his worst FG% year bar none as a pro
(.394 is twenty points off his previous rookie low), he
fell considerably in assists (5.5 to 5.0), he fell in
steals (1.70 to 1.50), blocks etc. In case you are
wondering, this was despite playing slightly more mpgs
than the previous year.
So what gives? If it seems I'm bashing Antoine Walker (my
favourite NBA player), wait until I get to the REST of
the team.
Sidebar: Antoine Walker IMO deservedly had what it took
to be voted an All Star game starter (Garnett's the only
other guy that can claim "20-10-and-5"), and Pierce
deservedly made the US national team (he might even be
the go-to scorer this month).
But ultimately the difference last year was defense
(hence wins, hence the recognition).
So I reiterate my original point. We fans can talk all
day long about offense or lack thereof, and of finally
having that "third scorer", lowpost threat etc.
But Boston might have a greatly improved offense and
still only win 35 games. Boston has added third scorers
before (Mercer, Kenny).
Last years offensive statistics fail to support the
thesis that offense made the difference. The won-loss
difference (a more than 20+ jump in wins including the
playoffs) was principally due to the use of an
established NBA defense (in this case, Dick Harter's)even
with the same personnel as before.
As counterintuitive as it can seem, all the evidence
suggests Boston was successful on defense under
Obie/Harter using a smaller, less traditional power
forward/center lineup. And because Boston was more
successful on defense, they became successful period.
With the exception of turnovers, both the Celtics team
and individual offense regressed or treaded water
compared to the team that finished more than 10 games
under .500 the year before. It all starts with Pierce and
Walker.
Because of Paul Pierces increased scoring, the Celtics
captains upped their combined scoring punch by a
supercharged 0.2 points per game (48.2 to 48.4).
At what cost in scoring efficiency did those 0.2 ppg
come? In Bostons previous mediocre season, Pierce/Walker
shot a good but not great .432 from the field combined.
Last year, they shot .417 combined.
You all want to blame all that on Antoine Walker right? I
know you do! ;-) Well blame Pierce too. He fell off .012
points in FG% last year, and thats not including
shooting .403 in our successful 16-game playoff run.
As a unit, the 57-win Celtics team declined in both FG%
(down .424 from .428) and 3-point FG% (also a decline
of .004). Moreover, there was a zero improvement in
offensive boards and a trivial increase in team assists
(0.2 more). Check it out for yourselves.
Im not arguing against Battie and Baker starting
together, with Walker at small forward. I hope Obie
finally experiments with it, since hes never done it
before.
The reality is that Obie seems to love Battie as his
pivot guy and Walker as his ultra-versatile power
forward. He loves Eric playing defense at small forward,
until Kedrick can step into that role.
And its been working. The Celts improved a
remarkable .034 points on defense, including 0.28 on
perimeter defense (3-point defense). They went from .470
allowed under Coach Pitinochio, to .425 last year.
Probably very few people thought we could play better
than .450 defense with our non-traditional lineup,
which had essentially the same personnel Pitino had at
his disposal. And some of these guys had off-years
(Walker, Tony Delk, Eric Williams and Strickland shot
under .400).
Improved offense is not going to trump weakened defense.
Remember the Nuggets and Hawks of the 80s?
The key for 2002-03 is how the three newcomers to
Bostons 8-man rotation (Vin Baker, Sham and Kedrick
Brown) can impact the teams defensive efficiency. I
think well see a bit more versatility with guys playing
multiple positions in every game. But if Kedrick/Eric
give more to team defense than Walker/Baker/Battie, then
the former will get the starting small forward minutes.
Joe H.
(apologies for a long post)
- -------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:28:52 EDT
From: GuyClinch@AOL.com
Subject: Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V9 #251
> The Verdict
>
My verdict:
Your column is biased wishful thinking. Like alot of fans you downgrade
other
teams talent and the talent you lost, and see our talent through rose
colored
glasses.
>
>
> 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.
>
Wishful thinking..
Your hear this double team concept passed about quite a bit..but careful
watching of game tape will show that lessor players can command doubles.
Players like Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson do command double teams
when they recieve the ball in the right position. Jason Kidd excels in doing
this.
Moreover, its quite possible that Martin and Jefferson will develop into
excellent players who will command these double teams more often. These guys
are just starting out.
Still doubt me..go watch the playoff series vs. Jersey. We had two
"difference makers" last year didnt we?
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.
>
Err you downgrade Rodney...but then admit he is more then a spot up shooter.
A guy who takes bigger players to the outside and shoots jumpshots, posts
smaller players, and fills the lane is a complete ball player and is doing
just what he SHOULD do.
But
> his role is basically the same as Dana Barros.
I never seen Dana Barros play small forward, power Forward or Center..
Again..wishful thinking on your part. To say oh Rodney is just a spot up
shooter is quite foolish. By the same token you could say that Walker or
Pierce are just spot up shooters. They also shoot alot of shots from the
outside. Both of them will post up on occasion, and well try to fill the
lane on the break. Sounds a bit like the description of Rodney Rodgers.
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.
Lucious Harris and Jefferson showed pretty consistent output off the bench.
Can you really quantify this "can't be depended on to make anything happen"
stuff?
This strikes me as wishful thinking. Every player has good nights and bad
nights...
I say prove it: What statistics do you have to back up the idea that these
players are not dependable? I bet you have none. I think these players are
no
less or more dependable then other quality NBA players. Jefferson and Harris
can certaintly create some shots. Harris seems bloody dependable against the
Celts..thats for sure.
>
> 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.)
Damn..yeah Rogers sure killed us up in the Philly series..
Get rid of those Tweeners ASAP. LOL.. Tweeners dominate the NBA.
See Kobe Bryant or Vince Carter in action sometime. Michael Jordan...Paull
Pierce the list goes on and on.
> 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.
Err..you did watch the series last year didn't you.
The Nets match up fine with Pierce. Richard Jefferson is exactly his size
and
as athletic if not moreso. How much more matched up can you be?
>
> 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
Now you really have to be kidding... We have seen Delk play the point..
and everyone on this damn list knows he can't. Its hard to imagine that one
of these no name guys can play the point even half as well as Kenny...
>
> but Kenny absolutely killed us with his spotty mid-range shooting,
Uh huh. ...your gonna have to prove this nonsense as well.
This is more wishful thinking. Sure Kenny "killed" us with his outside
shooting..right.
By the same token we could say Walker killed us with his outside shooting.
Truth be told Kenny shot the ball decently from the outside. Look at the
stats.
In addition, keep in mind that Kenny didn't shoot that much from the
outside,
about half his shots were layups... So how is it that Kenny killed us with
outside shooting?
Answer is..umm he didn't. Thats just wishful thinking on your part.
>
> 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.
Yeah thats why Seattle was so anxious to trade Baker he was such a glorious
"low post threat" who would open it up for Payton and Rashard Lewis and the
like.
Fact of the matter, is that in the past Baker has killed fast breaks and
been
lazy on defense and on the boards. That more then negates the over rated low
post effect.
This isn't the NBA of the 80's. Its 2002 ball complete with zone defenses
that destroy
low post threats.
>
> 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.
Well throw in the fact that he shot better then Walker, racked up a ton of
steals,
came up with key clutch layups and led the team in assists...and yeah thats
about it. LOL.
Heck Kenny ranked 9th in steals per game at 1.86 and 8th in assists/turnover
ratio per game at 3.39. He led the teams in assists at 5.3. Hmm
hmm..avoiding
actually looking at those stats again eh? Let me see he shot %42 percent
from the field and pulled down a surprising 3.6 rebounds a game.
Impecabble ball handling is a BIG part of being a point guard... Most people
would consider it his number one job. Throw in the fact that he lead team in
assists, was second in steals, rebounded well and played some defense to
boot
you have a very solid player in KA being shipped out
>
>
> 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.
>
Gee..more rose colored glasses..
None of those guys out there are any good with the exception of Best. Thats
why we aren't likely getting him. Its bad form to "hype" up potential
Celtics...and the Celtics while downgrading non Celtics and ex Celtics.
Thats
basically what your entire column did. I haven't read a more biased column
in a long time.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:45:49 +0200
From: "hironaka@nomade.fr"<hironaka@nomade.fr>
Subject: Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V9 #251
> ---------- Initial message -----------
>
> I haven't read a more biased column
> in a long time.
>
> Pete
>
Wait, what's so bad about that? :-)
Seriously, I appreciate the tone of the column and
incidentally, I don't feel it is all that big a stretch.
Setting aside the length-of-contract and value-for-money
arguments, what other lowpost bigman would you rather the
Celtics have added without giving up on of the captains?
The Celtics are likely to get as much overall production
out of Vin Baker for the upcoming season as Toronto would
have gotten out of Keon Clark. He may even be as
productive as Kandi-man will be for the Clippers (now we
are already talking franchise center caliber).
Next year in the East, there will be no team deeper at
center and power forward than Boston. None.
And its probably true that Vinnie is a lowpost cleanup
slugger who could improve the "pitches" that Walker and
Pierce see. Thus higher FG% all around from our two
franchise guys (I hope so, after how they shot the ball
last year). ;-)
Aside from this type of "wishful thinking", there's
nothing wrong in general with supporting the Celtics even
during troubled times.
This Summer qualifies as troubling. Ownership reacted to
a "Final Four" season by holding payroll down to around
17th in the league.
How many of you think Gaston is expecting the Celtics to
compete for long with a NBA bottom-third payroll?
How many think he expects nothing less a championship-
driven team in Boston?
Pond and Chris Wallace are taking no chances by dropping
payroll into the 51 million range thus far, rather than
extending up to higher band 54 million range like other
teams, when handed a golden opportunity to affordably re-
sign a 6th man and third leading scorer.
I agree with those who feel that there must be more to
the Rodney Rogers story than meets the eye.
Anytime a team fails to re-sign a third leading scorer at
a fair price (2.8 million), it generally means the player
in question is over-the-hill, or won't play defense, or
he scores by being a ballhog, or he is a locker-room
cancer, or injury prone, insubordinate etc. All the more
so when he's about to sign with your closest division
rival and it is met with dead silence.
Whatever was wrong with Rodney Rogers, it was well hidden
from the fans and media.
The manner in which the front office handled the Rodney
Rogers situation was so clumsy it almost had to be
deliberate.
First they offer him 1 million and even tell the press
about this humiliating paycut. Nice plan, guys!! What was
the intended aim there? Its a good thing Rodney had the
class not to speak his mind.
Then days later, they trade for a guy making 12.5 million
with a very different reputation ("2-time coach killer"
according to Bob Ryan's weekend column).
And Boston tosses in Joe Forte not in order to make the
trade numbers match, but seemingly to save a million
bucks in 2003-04. I think he would have made a fine "12th
man" on our current roster.
You simply couldn't have a greater contrast between
Rogers and Baker. Rodney has the reputation as your blue-
collar 18-wheel trucker and NASCAR fan. Judging by the
Shira Springer profile, Vin Baker's big hobby is,
well, "Baking"....along with "basting", "glazing", "BBQ-
ing" etc.
I think the two could have co-existed in Boston within a
respectable 54 million payroll band.
In that scenario, if our three current point guards
flopped, I would have expected Boston to trade the better
among Delk or Shammond (whomever had more trade value at
midseason) with a first round pick for the best 3.0
million dollar point guard available via trade.
With Baker and Rodney, the Celtics would not have been
that far away from championship contention. But losing
Rodney is a bit like having a key player get "injured".
Assuming there are no further injuries (knock wood)
Boston can still be pretty competitive. I think Josh is
right to point out the strengths of this team.
We are still uncommonly strong and talented at
center/forward. We have the most dangerous scorer in the
East at shooting guard. It ought to be enough to compete.
And if Kedrick catches up to where Richard Jefferson is
at developmentally, that would signal that Boston is as
strong (or stronger) than the Nets.
Basically, we need Kedrick to morph into a Rodney
Rogers...a true 3-point threat off the bench who can
rebound and defend guys at several positions. That's what
I'm hoping for in the coming year...and I do think the
Lepprechaun is finally heading back to the Fleet Center.
JH
- -------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:32:35 -0700
From: "Fritz" <fritztcatt@attbi.com>
Subject: RE: thinking it through
Dan wrote:
>>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.
I will agree that before the trade they (NJ) had the slight edge. This
trade hurt them IMO. They lost better than 25 points on O and lost 14 on
the glass, by giving up Mac and Van. They took back garbage and Mutumbo
12/10.
They shorted themselves offensively and we (the C's) exposed Mutumbo for
what he is on D, slow and unable to move out of the paint. On the
offensive end, Mutumbo never even made it down the floor 45-55% of the
time. To me this would put the edge back in our court.
So you say RR is a big signing?? Another guy that does not play
inside (VanHorn??) So now they have a 5 as back up that we can actually
cover inside or out. Who does Kidd pass to on the break?? I can see a
lot of 3 on 5 breaks for the Nets this year...no???
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:38:55 -0400
From: Kim Malo <kimmalo@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Formidable front line
At 07:28 PM 8/19/02 +0200, hironaka@nomade.fr wrote:
>Good points, but don't you think the issue is defense not
>offense?
Sure, but even just having a big body in the lane could make an amazing
difference, even if it's not a particularly ferocious defender. That's been
one of my whines for the last several years - that we may not have the
world's greatest big men, but we also don't make good use of what we have.
Too many times it's been a wide open lane because no one's there vs someone
there and not a good enough defender to throw terror into the opponent's
heart. Just having a body there slows down the opponent and forces them to
adjust. And I have to admit that I'm rather shocked to find myself having
some faith (trust me, that's not like me and really DOES shock even myself)
in the coaching staff and teammate peer pressure making Vinnie a better
defender than he thinks he is. Plus just having another big body will help
Battie, both per se and in terms of less wear and tear, and he's likely the
better defender anyway. And who knows, maybe Sundov will amaze us all.
Anyway, moving on to a few other points: I'm not going to bother to check
your facts because you're usually pretty good about this sort of thing, but
as you know well stats by themselves don't really tell the whole story and
the same ones can be used to make totally opposing points. Classic case is
the Walker jockers over the years who have emphasized his ppg while
carefully ignoring the number and type of shots he took to get them, while
his haters look at shooting % & number of whots and ignore the ppg.
>In reality, as we all probably realize, Antoine averaged
>fewer rebounds last season than before (both compared to
>the previous seasons 8.9 and his career average).
*shrug* I'm not worried based upon what I saw, because it wasn't for lack
of going after them or anything bad like that. My guess is that part of
this comes from actually having someone else around who could make shots
occasionally and increased rebounding by others. It's the flip side of the
debate about assists, where sometimes assist levels are down because of
poor shooting by the recipients more than fault by the attempted assistor.
>He also slumped to his worst FG% year bar none as a pro
>(.394 is twenty points off his previous rookie low), he
>fell considerably in assists (5.5 to 5.0), he fell in
>steals (1.70 to 1.50), blocks etc. In case you are
>wondering, this was despite playing slightly more mpgs
>than the previous year.
Yup. In an absolute sense this is an issue. He will never have a high
shooting % and I will never be a total fan of his shot selection. But you
know, from what I saw, he WAS trying to take it to the hoop a lot more and
taking less dumb shots while a fair number of what would have been his
good/easy ones were going to others - notably Paul. I hate the 3 myself,
but a fair share of the really bad/dumb ones Walker took vs ones that
weren't bad (unless you hate the shot in the first place as I do) were ones
where he got the ball with the clock running down and HAVING to get
something off. In other words, yes I wish he shot better, but despite the %
I think issues around his shooting other than % were a lot less of a
hindrance to the overall offense than at any other point in his career.
Yeah, I wish he'd shoot better and always take smart shots, but no one does
it and I have real hope of continued maturity for the first time in his
career.
>So what gives? If it seems I'm bashing Antoine Walker (my
>favourite NBA player), wait until I get to the REST of
>the team.
*snort*
>But ultimately the difference last year was defense
>(hence wins, hence the recognition).
>
>So I reiterate my original point. We fans can talk all
>day long about offense or lack thereof, and of finally
>having that "third scorer", lowpost threat etc.
>
>But Boston might have a greatly improved offense and
>still only win 35 games. Boston has added third scorers
>before (Mercer, Kenny).
OK, a couple of points. I agree on the defense, but you still have to score
more than your opponents. People have pitched no hitters and lost (where IS
Matt Young these days...). While your 3rd scorer analogies don't work IMO
because Baker isn't just a third scorer variation on what we already have,
as you can argue Mercer and Kenny were. He is a higher % and new type of
offensive option, with the inside game that we've lacked. Higher %, more
apt to draw opposing team fouls (how many games did we lose by free throw
differentials? and IMO our continual outside shooting had a lot more to do
with that than quality of refereeing), and all the rest that means in terms
of opening up the rest of the offense.
>As counterintuitive as it can seem, all the evidence
>suggests Boston was successful on defense under
>Obie/Harter using a smaller, less traditional power
>forward/center lineup. And because Boston was more
>successful on defense, they became successful period.
Yup.
>The reality is that Obie seems to love Battie as his
>pivot guy and Walker as his ultra-versatile power
>forward. He loves Eric playing defense at small forward,
>until Kedrick can step into that role.
Loves it or it looked like the best of the available options?
>The key for 2002-03 is how the three newcomers to
>Bostons 8-man rotation (Vin Baker, Sham and Kedrick
>Brown) can impact the teams defensive efficiency.
<Chews this over thoughtfully...> Yes, BUT...
Look, I agree that if the make the defense significantly worse that that's
more effect than anything they can add on offense, but if they don't do
that then their offensive contributions could be the kicker between us not
quite being good enough again. Especially if Baker can actually get us
going with some post/inside game. That has an effect beyond his numbers -
like passing, it becomes contagious and opens things up so that maybe some
of our slashers will stop taking dumb outside jumpers and drive more. The
effect in fouls is exponential because it's not only the foulshots from
thefouls he (and others taking it more to the hoops) draw on the opponents
per se, it's the effect this puts on opponent's rotations and who THEY can
play that we can't stop and how free their players are to just do their
thing. Now if I could only get them to run some classic breaks : )
> I
>think well see a bit more versatility with guys playing
>multiple positions in every game. But if Kedrick/Eric
>give more to team defense than Walker/Baker/Battie, then
>the former will get the starting small forward minutes.
To some degree. I think there will be a lot more creative lineups where the
minutes aren't so tied to particular slots.
>(apologies for a long post)
Beats virtual GM posts of half the length any day IMO : )
Kim
------------------------------
End of The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V9 #252
*****************************************************
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