RE: FW: [Celtics' Stuff "They have mistaken the garnish for the s teak ."-Herald

["Shawn Niles" <shizzjr@hotmail.com>]

I agree with the points you make Mark. My point is not to listen to anything 
Gee says because he is just a negative person. He could have wrote about how 
this is the best Celts team in 10 years. But instead he chooses to devote a 
whole article to ripping them. I'm glad to see that National writers don't 
agree with him. ESPN has them ranked 6th right now, as the best Eastern 
Conference team. (Although that might change after tonight's loss).


>From: "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
>To: 'Shawn Niles' <shizzjr@hotmail.com>, "'celtics@igtc.com'" 
><celtics@igtc.com>
>Subject: RE: FW: [Celtics' Stuff "They have mistaken the garnish for the s 
>teak ."-Herald
>Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:34:20 -0500
>
>The one thing I'll say Shawn, is that it's not as simple as "33 percent on
>threes is as good as 50 percent on twos..." There's a reason the
>point-per-shot mark is not considered good: You're not factoring in free
>throws. You can find stats on points per shot, and 1.00 is an incredibly 
>low
>number. Teams that shoot a lot of three-pointers not only shoot a low
>percentage, they get to the free throw line very little. So they're scoring
>very few points per shot.
>
>The Celtics are winning this season not because of their reliance on the
>3-pointer. They're winning because of their defense. That's it. If they
>could combine this defense with a more efficient offense, they'd be even
>better.
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From: 	Shawn Niles [mailto:shizzjr@hotmail.com]
>Sent:	Friday, March 22, 2002 2:03 PM
>To:	berrym@BATTELLE.ORG; celtics@igtc.com
>Subject:	Re: FW: [Celtics' Stuff "They have mistaken the garnish for
>the steak ."-Herald
>
>Michael Gee is probably the most negative sportswriter this town has ever
>had. He simply finds a subject, puts a negative spin on it, and writes. I
>stopped reading his articles a long time ago. I doubt if he has even 
>watched
>
>1 celtics game this year. My guess is that he wrote an article after the
>Superbowl saying that the Pats gameplan was horrible. The editors just 
>chose
>
>not to publish it.
>My thoughts of his current article:
>
> >>If their team can make the guy take one shot
> >>for every point he scores, their defense should be good enough to win.
>
>Thats a foolish statement. It only applies to 3's because otherwise it 
>means
>
>a guy is shooting 50%, which is pretty good. 2 shots, 2 points. 50%, right?
>I have never heard any coach make such a statement anyways.
>
> >>Call me old-fashioned, but I don't care for an
> >>offense that prefers the lowest-percentage shot above all others. In a
> >>multiple-choice exam, why repeatedly mark down the answer most likely 
> >>to
>
> >>be wrong?
>
>That is just a flat out stupid thing to say. It is the most foolish
>reasoning I have ever heard. Evidently Michael has never taken any chances
>in his life. I guess he has always taken the easiest and simplest course
>possible. Although it explains why he is nothing more than a bitter
>sportswriter.
>
> >>All 3's involve some luck. That's why it's risky to get too fond of
> >> >>them. Basically, the 3-pointer is a tool of the weak, a means to let
> >> >>lesser clubs stay in games against their betters.
>
>Just another stupid statement. Maybe Michael doesn't realize that these 
>guys
>
>are professional athletes. They have certain skills that allow them to do
>their jobs better than anyone else. Sure, some 3's are lucky, (Pauls on
>Wednesday, Antoines to win the laker game), but a good majority of them go
>in because the players are very skillful shooters. I consider myself a
>pretty good 3-point shooter. I've won a number of 3-point contests. When I
>hit a 3 in a game, I don't run up the other end thinking, "I just got lucky
>again". I like to think I hit 3's because i've worked hard to aquire that
>skill. Even saying that, I am sure that I am not even 1/10th the shooter
>that NBA caliber players are. So I think it stands to reason that when they
>hit a 3, it is because of their skills, not luck.
>
>You can probably tell my disdain for Michael Gee. I just don't agree with
>anything he says. But I also try and look at things objectively. Even 
>still,
>
>I could not think that he is farther from the truth.
>
>
>
> >From: "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
> >To: "'celtics@igtc.com'" <celtics@igtc.com>
> >Subject: FW: [Celtics' Stuff "They have mistaken the garnish for the  
>steak
>
> >."-Herald
> >Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:29:43 -0500
> >
> >Most of you probably have seen this Michael Gee column from the Herald. 
>He
> >does a pretty good job of addressing the same concerns many of us,
> >including
> >myself, still have about this style of play. He and I and the other 
>critics
> >may well be wrong, but I'd love to see his proposed experiment take 
>place.
> >The one thing he doesn't really address that I'd add: I don't have a
> >problem
> >with the number of 3-pointers exactly. But the quality of those 
>3-pointers
> >is a real problem. A good, open 3-pointer is one thing. Many of the
> >Celtics'
> >attempts are challenged, early heaves. Simply saying 23 3-pointers is too
> >many is a little simplistic. But10 challenged 3-pointers-and the Celtics
> >probably average that many-definitely are too many.
> >Anyway, here you go:
> >
> >http://www2.bostonherald.com/sport/sports_columnists/gee03212002.htm
> >
> >For C's, 3's a crowd: Too many long shots are a big shortcoming
> >
> >
> >by Michael Gee
> >
> >Thursday, March 21, 2002
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >It was a typical performance for the Celtics' enigmatic superstar, the 
>one
> >who'll shoot them right out of the playoffs come April.
> >
> >He led all scorers with 33 points in Boston's 96-70 rout of the forlorn
> >Cavaliers last night. He was also the Celts' single-most dangerous 
>problem.
> >
> >No, not Antoine Walker. We're talking about Try A. Three, the malignant 
>imp
> >who possesses every Celtic when they come within 23 feet, 9 inches of the
> >basket.
> >
> >Three (``3'' to his friends) has responded to Boston's playoff run in the
> >classic fashion of all egocentric NBA talents. He's taking over the 
>offense
> >and damn the consequences.
> >
> >When Three missed 10 shots in a row in the first half to keep the
> >offensively challenged Cavs close, he didn't stop heaving them up. In 
>fact,
> >coach Jim O'Brien didn't want him to.
> >
> >``We told our guys to keep on firing,'' O'Brien said.
> >
> >Three's flesh and blood teammates won the game with stout defense, 
>holding
> >the Cavs to 29 second-half points. That point guard Andre Miller averages
> >more than 10 assists a game with this bunch is more amazing than Wilt
> >Chamberlain averaging 50 points a game in 1962.
> >
> >So don't let that leading-scorer distinction fool you. Three didn't lead
> >the
> >Celts last night, he held them back. Every coach in the NBA has a 
>benchmark
> >for defending a great scorer. If their team can make the guy take one 
>shot
> >for every point he scores, their defense should be good enough to win.
> >
> >Three took 31 shots for his 33 points against the Cavs. He's attempted
> >1,606
> >shots this season, 169 more than any other team. Break it down, and Three
> >is
> >averaging eight baskets on 23 shots per game.
> >
> >That's not efficient enough for Three to be Boston's first option. If he
> >cut
> >his shots in half, Three would score almost as much himself and the Celts
> >would score more than their 96.4 points per game.
> >
> >Of course, Three's not real, even as a creature of the spirit world. I 
>made
> >him up. If Three were a real player, Celtics fans would've ridden the
> >selfish gunner out of town on a rail long ago.
> >
> >The 3-point shot is a legitimate part of the NBA game. But it's just a
> >part.
> >What should be a diversionary tactic has become the Celtics' weapon of
> >choice. They have mistaken the garnish for the steak.
> >
> >Boston took 81 shots of all sorts against the Cavs. That means 38 percent
> >of
> >their attempts were 3's. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't care for an
> >offense that prefers the lowest-percentage shot above all others. In a
> >multiple-choice exam, why repeatedly mark down the answer most likely to 
>be
> >wrong?
> >
> >Increased dependence on the 3 is why the Celts seldom go to the line as
> >often as their opponents and one reason why they so often get 
>outrebounded.
> >It also makes for a deadly dull game, whether or not the shots go in. The
> >only 3 that was fun to watch last night was Paul Pierce's 65-footer at 
>the
> >first-half buzzer.
> >
> >``Just a lucky shot,'' O'Brien said.
> >
> >All 3's involve some luck. That's why it's risky to get too fond of them.
> >Basically, the 3-pointer is a tool of the weak, a means to let lesser 
>clubs
> >stay in games against their betters.
> >
> >The Celtics used to be weak, but that's no longer the case. Walker and
> >Pierce can score down low. They should be taking fewer 3's, not more, as
> >their club drives toward the postseason.
> >
> >O'Brien disagrees. Violently. So I have a little wager for the coach.
> >
> >The next time you have a home game against an NBA feeb (and the Warriors
> >are
> >coming soon), limit your club to no more than 10 3-pointers. I'll bet you
> >win big. And I'll bet you score more than 100, too.
> >
> >
> >
> >) Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Interactive Advertising
> >Systems,
> >Inc.
> >No portion of BostonHerald.com or its content may be reproduced without 
>the
> >owner's written permission. Privacy Commitment
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> >
> >
> >ADVERTISEMENT
> >
> ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705067
>1
> >05:HM/A=847665/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vbW9uc3RlcjcuZGF0=1016797134
>%
> >3eM=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705067105:HM/A=847665/R=1
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ><http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=215002.1818248.3328688.1261774/D=egroupma
>i
> >l/S=1705067105:HM/A=847665/rand=857112870>
> >
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >Celticsstuffgroup-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> ><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service.
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
>http://www.hotmail.com
>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx