RE: Herald - Michael Gee on the three

["Wright, Cecil" <Cecil.Wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gee also manages to forget that the Nets defense was designed to limit the
efficiency of Toine and Paul, with the theme of making someone else beat
them.  When he opines that the Nets D was "either too tired or lacked enough
interest to challenge Williams and Delk", he is neglecting that point
entirely.

Somebody on this list mentioned some time ago that one strategy with which
to employ versus Kidd is to make him work on D.  By utilizing our PGs in
such a manner, it limits his capacity to help out, an area where he is very
effective.  Make him concentrate on guarding an offensive threat and he will
have problems.

Cassell: 	12pts - 3reb - 9ast - 0stl - 1to
Kidd:	   	24pts - 3reb - 5ast - 1stl - 2to

JWill:	26pts -14reb -13ast - 2stl - 2to
Kidd:		25pts -11reb -12ast - 2stl - 0to

Nash:		30pts - 0reb - 9ast - 1stl - 5to
Kidd:		22pts - 9reb -13ast - 5stl - 5to

Delk:		21pts - 7reb - 3ast - 2stl - 3to
Kidd:		19pts - 6reb - 6ast - 1stl - 7to

These numbers represent what the opposing PG has done in the Nets 4 losses.
Clearly, putting pressure on him to contain a scoring PG is a problem.  We
now have the capacity to do the same, with the exception that we have
another guy who can come off the bench and hit a shot from that position as
well.

Gee is correct about making due with what you got.		

Cecil  


-----Original Message-----
From: Eggcentric@aol.com [mailto:Eggcentric@aol.com]
Sent: November 21, 2002 8:48 AM
To: celtics@igtc.com
Subject: Herald - Michael Gee on the three


< Loyal readers know what I think about an offense based on the 3. 
It's boring to watch when it works, and sheer torture when it doesn't. > 
- Mike Gee

Dikembe who ... geesh, the 76ers first good trade in a long time.

Things literally fell into place last night - it was a good victory.
It makes us forget that our eleven opponents to date have bested us 
in rebounds, assists, blocked shots, and FG%, while reminding us that
the almighty three is the only thing that counts.  

In games like this, when the three is falling, we look invincible and 
Wallace/Obie/Papile come off as modern-day Einsteins.  But when the 
almighty three is not falling, we look more like a dysfunctional, 
unimaginative team wholly dependent on a low-percentage shot.

Yin yang, yin yang.  This team will drive us all wacko by April ... or have 
they already. Hmmmmm.

Stay tuned.

Egg
---------------------
Magic of 3 only fleeting 

by Michael Gee 
Thursday, November 21, 2002


The Celtics made a great many changes in the offseason. But they're still 
the same team. In fact, they're more of the same team.

Boston used to be about defense and two guys chucking away from 3-point 
range. 
Now, the Celts are defense and four guys shooting from the loge seats.

Antoine Walker and Paul Pierce, move over and make some extra room behind
the 
arc for Shammond Williams and Tony Delk.

The moral, assuming there is one, of the Celts' 96-79 trouncing of the Nets 
last night 
at the FleetCenter is that when the long balls go in and the other side
fails 
to show up, 
Boston's going to be tough to beat. When a team shoots 14-of-25 from 3-point

range, 
as the Celts did, and the opponents go 4-for-22 in the third quarter, as the

Nets did, 
a rout is a forgone conclusion.

Magic that works always looks good. Williams and Delk each had 21 points, 
combining 
to make 9-of-10 3s.

``Clearly our point guards did a great job of knocking down shots,'' 
understated coach 
Jim O'Brien. But rest assured, magic is just what that kind of shooting is.
A 
more typical 
3-point night was experienced by senior bombardiers Walker and Pierce, who 
went 
4-for-11 from area code 781.

Delk and Williams' Annie Oakley impersonation raised Boston's team 3-point 
shooting 
percentage for the season to just 34.6. Remember that number as we delve
into 
the 
Nets' many sins.

New Jersey stunk in every aspect of the game. Their big trade for Dikembe 
Mutombo 
(that's Swahili for ``man turned to stone'') is an obvious disaster. The
Nets 
missed 
every shot known to man with consistency, going 15-of-26 from the free throw

line, as 
well as enduring that memorable third quarter.
`
`We were terrible tonight,'' said Nets coach Byron Scott. ``We just didn't 
compete.''

True. And yet, if Williams and Delk hadn't been so deadly accurate from 
outside, this
 would've been a close game, because the Celts were no great shakes 
themselves.

Boston went 12-of-23 from the line, had 18 turnovers, and shot 21-of-55 from

2-point range. Those are numbers that make supernatural long-range 
marksmanship essential.

In fact, if Boston had simply shot its season average from 3-point range,
and 
made 
only 9-of-25, the final score would've been 81-79. One more miss than that, 
and 
the Celts are losers.

Loyal readers know what I think about an offense based on the 3. It's boring

to watch 
when it works, and sheer torture when it doesn't. But in fairness to
O'Brien, 
he has 
no choice besides telling his gang to keep letting it fly.

Good coaching is playing the hand you're dealt. Pierce and Walker can't stop

shooting.
Williams and Delk are guards more adept at taking shots than creating them 
for others.
Those four are Boston's only realistic offensive options. We may wait awhile

for Vin 
Baker to win a game in the paint with a 20-point, 12-rebound performance.
Like all shooters, especially those coming off 21-point efforts, Williams 
felt there was 
nothing extraordinary about what he and Delk had done.

``Tonight we had easy shots,'' Williams said. ``Being a professional, you 
should be 
able to knock those down.''

The Nets were either too tired or lacked enough interest to challenge 
Williams and 
Delk. That may not always be the case. A scout for the Hawks, whom Boston 
plays
 tomorrow, was in the house taking copious notes.

A team with four potential scorers is always better off than one with only 
two. Last 
season the Celtics lost any game in which Walker and Pierce (12-of-40) were 
as 
subpar as they were in this one.

But 52 percent free throw shooting loses for you far more often than 56 
percent 
3-point shooting wins. The Celtics remain highly dependent on the 
low-percentage 
shot.