dlpin

By the way, here's the trade from SI. The guy didn't say it's a rumor, just that he, personally thought it would be good for all:

Not true at all? Wallace is a head case, takes too many threes, complains too much, and often contaminates the team with his negativity. But if there is one thing he does really, really well is guarding Howard. The one game against the magic where he played extensive minutes against Howard he kept him to 5 points.

Sure, Lebron at 25 is better than Durant at 21. But how does Durant at 21 compare to Lebron at 21? Durant will win an MVP or two before all is said and done. Horford won't. It's your line of thinking that left Portland with Sam Bowie instead of Jordan.

How can you say that when you don't know what the luxury tax will be? Right now, the projected cap for next season is between 50 and 55 million. Luxury tax is partially based on the amount of the salary cap. If the salary cap goes back to 06-07 levels like many expect, the luxury tax should go back to around 65 million like it was that year. The hawks have 8 players under contract next season for 47 million. For a player of JJ's experience the max is 35% of the cap. In a cap of 53, the max is 18 a year. That would put the hawks over the tax even before signing the rest of the mandatory players to the roster. So if the hawks round out the roster by signing minimum salary guys, and offer JJ the maximum, the payroll would be at the very least 68 million. Luxury tax this year was 69. If it goes to 65 like I said above, the hawks would be 3 million over the tax. That would mean that the hawks would go from receiving their share of the tax (last year it was 3 million) to paying taxes. That right there is a 6 million dollar swing in revenues.

My point wasn't whether the hawks are over achieving or underachieving. My point is that the hawks is not this vastly superior team this year that some here are talking about. Sure, they are on pace for a better record. But they are on pace to having the starters for most if not all games, instead of missing 3 starters for at least 15 games. This is a slightly better team that is significantly healthier while every other contender is missing key players for extended periods of time.

Not to dismiss the hawks successes this year, but things seem better than they are. The hawks are just 3 games ahead of where they were at the same time last year, while being significantly healthier. The difference is that Boston has been mostly injured and as such is 8 games behind where they were last year, the magic have had fit problems and are 4 games behind where they were last year. Again, not to dismiss its successes, but the hawks isn't nearly as improved as many people think.

The idea that Boston is going to be passed by Toronto is ludicrous and has no basis on reality. Even struggling as much as they have been this past month, the celtics are 9-12 in the past 21. But those 12 losses include 3 to the hawks and 2 to the lakers. That is, Boston was 9-7 against everyone else, and they dont play the magic or the hawks again. With 33 games left, even if we assume the celtics will be slightly worse than 50%, and finish 16-17, that would still require the raptors to go 21-10 the rest of the way. And the raptors still have 2 games against cleveland, 1 against the lakers, 2 against atlanta, 1 against boston, 2 against portland, 2 against denver, 2 against OKC and 1 against Utah. So they would have to beat every single team with a worse record and at least one team with a better record. Except they are 9-17 on the road and have more games on the road than at home. The more likely scenario is 1- cleveland 2- magic 3- hawks 4- celtics. As a celtics fan I am comfortable with that. I think the celtics have a better chance of beating the cavs than either the magic or the hawks.

to me that 3rd quarter is a great example of what drives me nuts about Doc. I think he is a great player's coach. I think he is a great coach for team chemistry and so on. But his management of time outs and substitutions is horrendous. It took him 8 minutes to make the first sub in the third quarter. It took him 6 minutes to call a time out. And from the moment the game was tied to the moment the celtics were down by 14 he didnt call a single time out. How can anyone be so passive in a 36-11 quarter?

So you use the quarter that the celtics moved the ball the least, with several lazy shots early in the shot clock, to prove a point that ball movement is bad? The celtics moved the ball very well for 3 quarters, and won those three quarters. The celtics settled for lazy jumpshots early in the shot clock in the third and they lost that quarter badly. If anything, that is evidence of the importance of ball movement.

Allen has always been mostly a jump shooter. I mean, sure, he had his share of dunks, but it's not like he was ever a candidate for the slam dunk contest. From the 82games.com stats, he's never had more than 4% of his shot attempts be dunks.

Yeah, but he's basically a jump shooter now. You don't even see him dunking anymore.

Sure, he only gained 20 pounds. But that is only because he was already HUGE when he made it to the pros. Add to that that surgery to remove a tumor in his jaw, his amazing recovery and endurance and I think he is candidate #1 for steroid user. What I don't get is why Ray Allen is in that list. A 200 pound 6'5 guy who was never very athletic is not what I consider obvious steroid user.

And yet the Hawks average the second worst ppg against the magic (only the nets are worse, at 78.5 ppg), the 9th worst ppg against the bobcats, the 11th worst ppg against the cavs, and the fifth worst ppg against the heat. The hawks' sheer athleticism gives them an offensive rebounding advantage over teams like the celtics and the raptors, but when they can't rely on offensive rebounds, that offensive scheme doesn't work.

Hawks' matchup problems against the magic are more than made up in this comparison by their matchup advantages against the celtics. With the exception of a Gasol-less Lakers, the hawks are a significantly worse team against good defenses than other top offensive teams. 95 ppg against OKC, 92.5 ppg against the cavs, 93ppg against the bobcats. The evidence is overwhelming that the hawks do better when they run and share the ball. The evidence is overwhelming that iso JJ and iso Crawford don't really work and are easily defended. In fact, that is valid for pretty much everyone: http://www.82games.com/assisted.htm

You want to compare how the nuggets, raptors and suns do against good defenses? Sure, 2 out of 3 have lost more than they've won against good defenses. But the numbers in those games once again support what I am saying. PPG for and PPG against for the teams you selected, overall: Raptors 104.4 105.2 Nuggets 106.8 101.8 Suns 110 107.6 Hawks 102.2 97.5 PPG for and against against the top 6 defensive teams: Raptors 102 108.5 Nuggets 100.5 95.3 Suns 103.5 113.5 Hawks 93.3 98.5 In other words, the hawks have significantly more problems on offense against good defensive teams than other good offensive teams.

Except that the scheme is the same, it is a matter of Sheed adjusting to it. And he has started to adjust to it: 3 point shots per 36 minutes, by month: October: 11.07 November: 9.15 December:5.9 January: 6.3 February: 4.18 So, as clear as day, the more he plays with the celtics the fewer 3 pointers he attempts, which proves without any doubt that him taking 3 pointers is NOT part of the offensive scheme. The idea that Doc could somehow magically make him stop shooting the 3 is insane, as is the idea that Doc actually wants him taking those 3 pointers. The reason he still gets away with some 3 pointers is because Doc gives him some leeway because of what he brings to the table defensively. The guy is second in the league in defensive rating. The guy held Dwight Howard to 5 points in their first meeting. At this point, what are you arguing? If you are still convinced that iso JJ and iso Crawford are the way to go, where is the data that shows that? Why does woody's offense perform so poorly against top defensive teams?

Again, how many touches Perkins gets is irrelevant. I was not talking about the total number of turnovers, but the turnover percentage. The reason the celtics have so many turnovers is because of personnel, not scheme, and evidence of that is that players in the same position have different turnover percentages. Perkins is a beast of a defender, but on offense he is clueless. And the point is that while Doc is far from being a perfect coach, in general the offensive schemes the celtics run do a better job against good defenses than the hawks schemes. In fact, the main criticism celtics fans have of Doc is that he will often do the iso Pierce plays. If you look at the last few minutes of the lakers and the magic games, the celtics lost because they couldn't score after Doc went to the "iso Pierce" offense. Isolation plays might work very well against poor defensive teams. But unless you have a Lebron or a Kobe on your team, good defensive teams will usually have no problems against iso defenses.

You didn't understand anything I said, but its hopeless. I didn't say him taking 3 pointers is a strength. I said that comparing the effectiveness of the 3 pointer vs the 2 pointer is the strength of eFG% as a statistic. And, again, he doesn't take that many 3s by design. It's not in the game plan: http://celticshub.com/2009/11/19/doc-to-sheed-cut-the-3s/ They live with his 3 point shooting because he is the best Dwight Howard defender in the league.

Regarding Sheed: he shoots so many 3 pointers because he wants to, not because the game plan calls for that. Doc has told Sheed numerous times to not shoot as much, so that is not on the game plan. And second, it is amazing to me that you still don't understand that eFG% is important precisely because of guys like Sheed. His eFG% on 3 pointers is 45%, his eFG in the paint is 57%, therefore eFG% tells you that he should play in the paint more. Im not going to discuss eFG% with you again, because its clearly hopeless. But what you tried to pass out as an efg% weakness is actually a strength.

my numbers all come from basketball-reference.com and 82games.com If the celtics had a better offense the past 2 years, and just now the hawks have passed it, wouldn't the obvious conclusion be that the celtics have a better scheme, but the hawks have now passed them with better offensive personnel? Did either team start playing differently this season? Rondo, Perkins, KG and Sheed are all great players, but that is because of their defense, not offense. Oh, and while Orlando certainly skews the numbers downward for the hawks, the celtics (who cant play against themselves) skew it upwards. In fact, of the top 6 defensive teams, the hawks only has a better offensive production than the celtics against the lakers. If you really think that the top 6 defensive teams are the only elite teams, here's how it breaks down: BOS ATL Cha 100 93 LAL 89 110 ORL 86 81 OKC 105 95 Cavs 95 92.5 And the lakers were without Gasol in that matchup. So, again, the celtics have consistently done better than the hawks against good defensive teams. Those numbers are not adjusted for pace, but given the fact that the two teams have almost identical paces (91.5 vs 91) the rest of the season, I doubt that is the explanation.

I'm sorry, but if there is anyone clueless about stats here, it's you. I cited turnover percentage, so it already controls for how many times one touches the ball. And, again, if it was something based on gameplan, Sheed would have a similar turnover percentage. Again, how do you explain the fact that the celtics do better against good defensive teams than the hawks? (by the way, i mixed up the data last post, the celtics are 9-4 against the top 10 defensive teams, not 18-9). How do you explain that, against the top 10 defensive teams Boston has averaged 96.99 points a game, and the hawks just 94.88? Could it be that constant iso plays do not work against top defensive teams? Oh, and here are the splits for the top 6 players in the hawks team: In wins: JJ: 21.9 ppg, 5.1 ast crawford: 18.6 3.3 ast Smith: 15.7 3.9 Horford 14.7 2.2 Williams 10.5 1.2 Bibby 9.2 4.6 In losses: JJ: 22.2 4.1 Crawford: 15.8 2.1 Smith: 13.8 3.5 Horford: 10.9 1.8 Williams : 9.6 0.8 Bibby: 8.2 3.5 Oh, and regarding offensive rebounds: if they are based so much on the game plan, how do you explain the fact that Pachulia had similar offensive rebounding rates before he came to the hawks? And sheed had abysmal offensive rebounding rates before he came to the celtics? I'm not debating whether or not the hawks are a better offensive team. They are. Im arguing that the celtics run better offensive sets, and that iso plays are awful. And the evidence is there. How do you explain the fact that the celtics score more against good defensive teams? How do you explain the fact that hawks' wins are directly correlated with JJ scoring less and everyone else scoring more?

I'm sorry, but it's obvious you don't watch many celtics games. Perkins has 32 offensive fouls this season, and 115 turnovers, so this whole notion that he gets turnovers setting picks is false. Heck, against the hawks he traveled 4 times in one game. The reason he gets so many turnovers is mostly because of what 82games.com classifies as "ballhandling turnovers." In fact, just compare his numbers with those of Sheed: Perkins turns the ball over in 21.4% of the plays, Sheed, his immediate back up, turns the ball over on 7.7% of the plays. If it was the system and not the player, Sheed would have a similar turnover ratio. And offensive rebounds has a lot more to do with personnel than game plan. Zaza was a great offensive rebounder even before he came to the hawks, and sheed was an abysmal offensive rebounder even before he went to the celtics. The fact remains: the celtics score a lot more per shot than the hawks. Another fact: against the top 10 defensive teams, the celtics are 18-9, the hawks 8-12. Another fact: Hawk's average assist on wins 23.9, on losses 17.7. Another fact: JJ's stats on wins: 21.5 ppg, 5.1 ast, in losses: 22.2 ppg, 4.1 ast. Another fact: Paul Pierce's stats on wins: 18.6 ppg, 3.6 ast, on losses: 19.4 ppg, 2.9 ast. The idea that "iso star player" is a better offensive strategy than sharing the ball is false, and proven by all relevant stats. Both the hawks and the celtics do better when their star players share the ball more, even if they score less. If the celtics played the exact same style, but was better in offensive rebounding, the celtics would have a better offense than the hawks.

You talk about his as if turnovers were part of the game plan. Turnovers in the celtics case are a result of having a 23 year old PG and a center that is a walking turnover machine. Kendrick Perkins is the worst in the league among starting centers for turnover percentage. But I've already mentioned the definite proof: despite the fact that the hawks have 3.5 fewer turnovers per game, and despite the fact that the hawks get 3 more offensive rebounds per game, the hawks only score 3 points more. In terms of points per possession and points per shot the celtics are much better than the hawks. The hawks simply get more possessions, and that has everything to do with personnel. The celtics simply do not have athletic forwards to crash the boards and generate more possessions.

Didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot here and basically admitted that the difference is the players, not the schemes? After all, didn't you just admit that the celtics' offensive schemes get sheed and allen open looks all the time? Now, Sheed is a career 34% shooter from 3 points, and Allen is a career 40% shooter. If the scheme is getting them wide open looks, it is a great scheme, and the reason they aren't doing so well is because they are having a bad year individually, and not the scheme. Now, Im not saying that Doc is a great coach. He has many flaws, especially ni managing his players minutes. He does these wholesale substitutions that really hurt the team and the flow of the game. But if you look at celticsblog.com, when it comes to offense you will see that nearly everyone agrees that when the celtics go to iso pierce, the offense becomes stagnant. Heck, the reason the celtics lost to the magic and the lakers this week is that down the stretch they went away from what they were doing early and started doing iso pierce to get time off the clock.

For that to happen the celtics would have to fall at least to 6th in the conference. Paul Pierce is good, but I don't think that would be enough for both the raptors to erase a 5 game difference in 34 games and the bulls to erase a 7 game difference in 37 games. If the bulls and the raptors keep the same pace, the celtics would have to have a .333 win percentage the rest of the season, and pierce by himself is not responsible for that.