Re: Thoughts...

["hironaka@xxxxxxxxx"<hironaka@xxxxxxxxx>]

> ---------- Initial message -----------
> 
> From    : owner-celtics@igtc.com
> To      : "'celtics@igtc.com'" <celtics@igtc.com>
> Cc      : 
> Date    : Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:25:05 -0500
> Subject : Thoughts...
> 
> Lots of things bouncing around...
> 
> ... I hate this team's tendency to mail in games this 
season. You could tell
> from the beginning last night that they were just going 
through the motions.
> Three 40-plus point blowouts are evidence of this. It's 
that little piece of
> mental toughness that separates this team from last 
season's. I'm not sure,
> when it gets really, really tough in the playoffs, that 
this team has the
> same will power that last year's did.
> 

I don't think Boston mailed it in, nor did they pass 
particularly poorly. They missed at a minimum 8 to 10 
truly makeable jump shots (and layins) over the course of 
the game, not to mention the 8-31.

At minimum, they needed to shoot their average (.415) in 
order to have a chance to win. Had they done even that, 
we'd at least be a dozen points closer by my calculation. 
I don't think we would have won, but Sacramento's not the 
same machine when the game is close.

Doug Christie played excellent defense. I couldn't 
believe how one player could have that much impact. 
Pierce got his points but looked very ordinary.

Walker, on the other hand, never jumped more than 3-
inches off the ground even when rebounding. He couldn't 
even get to some easy rebounds and loose balls because of 
his lack of lateral mobility. He made his usual moves 
inside (the defense had less to do with his poor FG%) and 
got plenty of open perimeter shots, but couldn't get the 
oomph he needed.

But the defense had a plan and the athletes to stop one 
guy, Pierce, and that was all she wrote.

> ... Stick a fork in Vin Baker. Can you believe we have 
three more seasons
> with this guy? He just got passed on the depth chart by 
Mark Blount (and
> Mark Bryant).
> 

Insult to injury, after losing his best friend on the 
team. Not getting in there for the last three garbage 
time minutes was a major insult, lending further credence 
to the notion that Obie is hanging Chris Wallace out to 
dry.


> ... Speaking of Blount, he was actively playing himself 
out of the rotation
> even for that terrible Denver team. He averaged about 
18 minutes per game in
> November, but that steadily decreased to about 10 per 
game this month. Don't
> ever forget how truly horrible he was in Boston. What a 
joke.
> 

That's not quite the whole story. In his pre-
trade "audition" this week, Blount collected 7 offensive 
boards versus the big frontlines of the Spurs and T-
Wolves. He also shot a respectable .471 this month, 
compared to around .380 going into February.

Add to that a good audition this week by Shammond, and 
the deal kind of made itself happen. I personally like 
the fact, at least, that we added the two million 
exception. At least there is some hint of cap expertise 
and thinking going on. But that might not save Chris 
Wallace. Like I said, this trade was either extremely 
selfless (almost noble) or entirely idiotic. There is NO 
WAY he can come out looking good.

> ... Celts could have had Elden Campbell, a huge upgrade 
at center, and his
> expiring contract right now. Or Brian Grant. Or Eddie 
Jones. Instead, they
> have Vin Baker and his monstrous contract. 


Honestly, what I expected would happen happened. My 
attitude was that I'd believe it when I see it, as far as 
all this Chad Ford ESPN stuff about teams trading non-
performing expiring contracts for actual talent. It 
didn't happen.

You either got expiring non-performing contracts for same 
(Elden for Kenny, Celtics-Denver) or actual talent for 
actual expiring talent (Ray Allen for Gary Payton and 
Desmond Mason). 

One thing we should stop complaining about is how we 
could have got Brian Grant for Kenny. If Brian Grant 
would have been traded in a heartbeat for Kenny like you 
wrote earlier, then I'd need more proof (a different set 
of expiring contracts such as Derrick Coleman getting 
traded for Brian Grant). It didn't happen. No matter how 
much it made sense to you or Chad Ford, that's the only 
verifiable fact we can go on. 

Crap player for crap player, quality for quality. That's 
how it ended up working in the end, except on the dot.com 
rumor mill.

I conveniently skipped your other comments, which were 
good ones. I'll say, however, that I have much less 
objection than you to our purportedly wasting the mid-
range jumper game.

Speaking for myself and FWIW, I like the inside-out 
spacing concept more these days (now that we are getting 
open shots from it and passing better on this trip). 

I like that a 10-point deficit can be a matter of three 
possessions instead of five, provided we have the 
shooters who can make that happen. I like that the 
Celtics have the ability to not fear 10 to 15 point 
deficits.

And above all, I don't notice as much as you do that Obie 
ignores the mid-range game, since the Paul Pierce turn-
and-face-up is the center piece of the offense (our 
centers shoot mid-range too). As long as that's the case, 
I don't have a problem with our perimeter guys gambling 
for three instead of two points when they've got an open 
look. 

Boston adds 9.2 extra points in scoring per game from 
threes. Abandoning that for higher percentage 18-20 foot 
jumpers might not improve our offense.

We should go inside more, and we should take threes. Just 
like we have been doing lately. I'm in basic agreement 
with the "Dayton Destroyer" on that one.

He's not the best situational game coach I've ever seen, 
but he's getting a ton of wins and the mood of anything's 
possible out of a team that doesn't have a natural 50% 
post-up player.








-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?