[recap][box score]
We on the Boston side can play the "What if..." game, although it's more accurately the "How often..." game: How often are we going to shoot 2-for-19 from three-point range? Those on the Orlando side, however, can respond with "How often are we going to make just 15 of 26 free throws and commit 20 turnovers?" The statistical anomalies more or less balance each other out.
Really, it boiled down to the fact that Orlando had a stretch where their shots were falling (the first quarter), whereas Boston never really got going. That's it, plain and simple. Even as Boston cut a 16-point first quarter deficit to one just before halftime, I never felt confident in our ability to score on a given possession. Nor could I really say how we ended up scoring 29 points in that period. Some free throws here, a basket in transition there, a jumper or two sprinkled in. The offense just never was clicking. The same was true after we went down 66-57 late in the third. We came back to tie the score at 78, but it took nearly a whole quarter to do it. Holding a team as good as the Magic to 12 points in 11 minutes is a terrific defensive effort, but scoring just 21 points during that stretch wasted it.
There are a couple of positive things to take from the game. Other than the first period, the defense was very good, which it hasn't been at all recently. Additionally, our two big off-season acquistions, Rasheed Wallace and Marquis Daniels, were arguably our best players tonight. Despite his terrible shooting night, Wallace had a major positive effect, grabbing 13 rebounds and making three steals in a season-high 33:38 of court time (he played the last 19 and a half minutes after Kendrick Perkins went to the bench with his fifth foul 4:30 in to the third quarter). Daniels' stat line wasn't nearly as full, but he made a lot of little plays that helped us get back in it.
Some quick bullets:
- Perkins picked up his fourth foul trying to draw a charge on Rashard Lewis with 8:47 on the clock in the third quarter. As mentioned above, he picked up his fifth a minute later, with Wallace at the scorer's table waiting to check in for him. Why do I mention it? Because Doc Rivers had two opportunities to get Perk out of there before he picked up his fifth (immediately after the foul, and when Rajon Rondo commited a loose-ball foul on the other end) and didn't do it. It probably didn't hurt us because Wallace filled in so well, but it's still a mistake that shouldn't be made.
- For the second time this year, Eddie House played the crunch time minutes in place of Rondo. I've been thinking about it for an hour or so, and I still can't decide how I feel about it. On the one hand, Rondo wasn't having much of an effect on the game and House's defense, normally a reason for Rondo over House, wasn't a problem. On the other hand, the big reason to play House over Rondo is House's outside shooting, which wasn't there at all tonight. The other argument for House is that his presence forces the opposition to play honest defense, and the rest of the Celtics got some good looks at three-pointers as Orlando ran at House on ball reversals; they just didn't knock them down. But House can't break down his man like Rondo can, and Rondo taking the ball to the basket often results in an open look for a teammate. Maybe I'd be singing a different tune if Wallace had knocked down a couple of the threes he took off of House passes, but I would've gone back to Rondo a bit sooner. We weren't hitting our jumpers and a still-hobbled Paul Pierce was having a tough time getting his own shot. We needed someone to create.
- On a related note, some of you are no doubt saying something to the effect of "No team should ever shoot 2-for-19 from three-point range" -- the idea being that if you're that cold, you should look for a different way to score. There's some truth to that, but the looks Boston got were by and large good ones. Orlando played pretty good defense, Rondo wasn't playing down the stretch, and Pierce really struggled to create for himself. Those were the shots that were available, and on a normal night, they knock enough down that it's not an issue.
- I thought Pierce did a very nice job of battling Dwight Howard on several defensive rotations, keeping the big guy out of scoring position while our bigs recovered.
- During the broadcast, ESPN's Jeff Van Gundy noted that Kevin Garnett tonight surpassed 40,000 career minutes. I hopped on to Basketball Reference to see where that ranked all-time (25th) and discovered something a little unsettling; among active players, Boston has four of the top 12 in minutes played. I knew we were old, but that was still pretty unsettling.
2 comments:
On a related note, some of you are no doubt saying something to the effect of "No team should ever shoot 2-for-19 from three-point range" -- the idea being that if you're that cold, you should look for a different way to score.
Anyone who thinks this would be wrong. Team 3-point shooting is a function of multiple players taking threes. So long as those players are capable of hitting >32% or so as a general matter, it's a positive value shot no matter how many your team has missed already that game.
Bottom line: If your team is 2/18 and you have a good look from three by a player who's not inept from behind it, you take that shot and you're happy about it in almost any situation.
Related random note - attempting a three when you're down two with less than 5 seconds left on the clock is usually the best play assuming the defense isn't awful.
That was generally my point; that it's okay to take good looks no matter what. I do, however, think that guys can get "cold" just as easily as they can get "hot," which you may not agree with. My belief in that is a mitigating factor that may (though not in this case) counsel against taking that good look, though whether a guy is a "32% shooter" -- not in terms of his actual percentage, of course -- on a given night may be immeasurable.
Post a Comment